Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Drug-related Crime

Mr. Corbett: What recent estimate he has made of the amount of drug-related crime. [24612]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): My hon. Friend may be aware that the Home Office is conducting research into this phenomenon. We hope to publish the results in the next few months. The research shows, as we suspected, a strong link between drug use and crime.

Mr. Corbett: Given that the criminal activities of drug offenders are estimated to cost £1.5 billion, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Home Office works closely with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health so that there is a combined attempt to tackle the causes of drug abuse, rather than merely its symptoms? Will he confirm that personal responsibility is a better antidote to drug abuse than are chemical substances?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. It is necessary for all Departments to work together on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established a high-powered committee, chaired by the President of the Council, with exactly that objective. The United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, was appointed for that purpose. He is examining those links, where money is spent and where it could be better spent in the future. Of course, personal responsibility is an important concept which, if taken seriously, leads people away from, rather than towards, drug abuse.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Bearing in mind the fact that supplying drugs to prisoners is a crime, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people were charged with supplying drugs to prisoners in the past year? In an attempt to bring that number down, will he undertake to make available to each prison ring-fenced money so that each may have a trained drug detection dog available for prison visits?

Mr. Howarth: I do not have to hand information on the number of visitors who have been caught taking drugs

into prisons, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important to stress that that is a prominent way in which drugs are getting into prisons. The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is an offence to take drugs into prisons. There is an increasing tendency to use sniffer dogs, passively or actively. The Prison Service and individual prisons are considering that.
We are concerned about the prevalence of drug abuse in prisons. The Prison Service is conducting research into precisely what is going on. We hope to report the findings in due course. Many useful drug initiatives are taking place in the Prison Service, ranging from counselling to detoxification. We are committed to such programmes as well as to the extension of a voluntary drug testing unit in each prison, as resources permit and over time.

Ms Abbott: Is my hon. Friend aware that in prisons such as Holloway many women go in drug-free and come out with a serious drug habit because of the easy availability of drugs? Is he aware that many people in the voluntary sector who work in prisons believe that some prison officers are bringing drugs into prisons? Is he prepared to see them tested, as well as visitors?

Mr. Howarth: On my hon. Friend's last point, it is often asserted that that is the case, although unfortunately—perhaps I should say fortunately—there is no evidence that prison officers are responsible for bringing drugs into prisons. If there were, we would have to consider introducing voluntary testing. My hon. Friend points out that it is not unknown for people to go into prison—a women's prison or a male establishment—drug-free and to acquire a habit in prison. There is concern about that and it is why we have programmes to deal with it: counselling, detoxification, or voluntary testing regimes. Mandatory drug testing is already done randomly in each prison.

Oral Answers to Questions — Asylum and Immigration Detainees

Dr. Harris: What monitoring exists in respect of health care provided for asylum and immigration detainees in privately run detention centres. [24613]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Medical services at detention centres are subcontracted. The local director of public health is consulted as necessary on the specifications of the contract. The contracts are closely monitored, both by the contractor and the immigration service. There are regular meetings of the detention medical co-ordination committee, involving medical officers, the Prison Service and the immigration service.
Independent visiting committees monitor all aspects of the operations at detention centres and report to the Home Office. At Campsfield house in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there is a general practitioner on the visiting committee, Dr. Pander, who liaises on medical care with the centre doctor. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has carried out recent inspections at both Tinsley house and Campsfield house; both reports dealt with medical issues. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also recently visited to look into these issues.

Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he share my concern that the increasing subcontracting—as between the immigration service, then a privately run security service, then a private medical company, and then private practitioners—may prompt questions about accountability? Is he not worried about the alleged under-provision of psychiatric services for people who are detained indefinitely without being given a reason? Is there not an opportunity to carry out good health screening on these people, who are least able to be their own advocates and who do not have access to patients charter rights?

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of at least some parts of his question. There is a need for more co-ordination of medical standards in detention centres. Indeed, the detention medical co-ordination committee meets regularly to improve co-ordination. The local director of public health is often consulted—I understand that at Campsfield house there is regular contact with the local director.
In some places, the quality of psychiatric care provided for detainees is better than the quality of care available to the hon. Gentleman's other constituents. Not only are doctors and nurses on call 24 hours a day, but consultants can be brought in when needed and services are provided quickly—perhaps more quickly than they are for the general population.
I do not accept that any detainees are detained without a reason.

Mr. Cox: What accountability do private contractors for health and other services have to boards of visitors?

Mr. O'Brien: Contractors are accountable in the sense that they have a closely monitored contract with the Home Office and the immigration service, and the Home Office and immigration service pay great heed to the reports of the visitors' committees. We are moving towards regular special reports on the medical facilities at detention centres because, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend have said, we need to get standards right. As for contractors' operations, we must ensure greater co-ordination and allow visitors' committees the control that we should like them to have.

Mr. Wilkinson: As Heathrow airport, the largest port of entry to the United Kingdom, is in the same borough as my constituency—with Harmondsworth detention centre alongside it—can the Minister tell me whether any of these medical monitoring costs fall on the local authority?

Mr. O'Brien: Only in the sense that there is regular consultation, given that the people in the area are likely to be treated by local doctors. We must ensure proper control procedures and high standards of medical provision for detainees. The costs are limited; they are aimed at maintaining the highest quality of care for detainees.

Oral Answers to Questions — Immigration Advisers

Mr. Cranston: What plans he has to regulate immigration advisers. [24614]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): A consultation paper setting out the options for the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers was published on 22 January in line with our manifesto commitment. Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to interested parties. Comments are invited by 23 March.

Mr. Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the consultation paper. He has acted swiftly—unlike the Conservative party—which did nothing for 18 years. In my short time in the House, I have been approached by a number of immigration advisers who are obviously incompetent. As the consultation document suggests, some are unscrupulous and even criminal.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a specific point in the consultation paper? Does he agree that there is a strong case for compensation and appeal provisions for those who fall into the hands of bogus advisers?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As every hon. Member who has any connection with immigration or asylum cases knows, the problem with unscrupulous advisers is not just their incompetence, but often their dishonesty and sometimes their criminality. My Department has a list of 250 firms of unscrupulous immigration advisers, including nearly 40 firms of solicitors that are engaged in such practices.
Our aim is to have a system of registration that would, in almost all cases, exclude unscrupulous advisers. It is plain that we have to think about whether there should be a system of compensation in cases where such advisers have crept within the net.

Mr. Malins: I thank the Home Secretary for what he has said. He will be aware of my involvement in the Immigration Advisory Service, which has, over the years, provided the best possible expert help free of charge. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many in the ethnic minority community will be very unhappy at the news that he is to cut the special grant of £500,000 to the IAS, which was awarded specifically to help destitute asylum appellants? Will not most of them suffer enormously as a result of the cut that he proposes? Will he consider reinstating the grant?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. What is frustrating about the fact that a large number of people use unscrupulous immigration advisers is that reputable charities, such as the Immigration Advisory Service, provide—on the basis of Government grant—a free service which, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, is infinitely superior to the service that they receive from any of these so-called advisers. As to the hon. Gentleman's last point, no decision has yet been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — Electoral System

Mr. Winnick: When he will make a statement on what electoral system is to be used in the next general election. [24615]

Mr. Straw: The independent commission on the voting system has begun its work and has been asked to report


within a year. After that, we intend to introduce legislation for a referendum so that the electorate may decide on the future electoral system for the Westminster Parliament.

Mr. Winnick: Why is there any need for a change to the system for elections to Westminster? Were not those who argued that the existing system meant permanent Tory government proved wrong—fortunately—last May? What we do not want is permanent coalition government.

Mr. Straw: My personal views on the matter are well known and I have not changed them in recent weeks. I set them out at some length on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Many people believe that we should have a different system. My hon. Friend will recall that the former leader of the Labour party, the late John Smith, proposed that the matter be resolved by way of the electoral commission and then by referendum. I was pleased to advise the 1995 Labour party conference that that was the way forward. Those of us who take one view should be sufficiently confident in it to believe that it will be shared by the British people.

Mr. Forth: Will the Home Secretary do his best to ensure that the electoral commission and, thereafter, the electorate, are made fully aware of the experience in New Zealand, where people were persuaded to choose what appeared to be a rather simple and easy option and, according to the evidence, have bitterly regretted it ever since?

Mr. Straw: I know that the commission under Lord Jenkins is to make several trips. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he taking with him?"] I have no idea whether commission members are taking their wives or partners—and I am not sure whether they will travel as far as New Zealand.
There is much to be said on both sides of the issue. One of the difficulties with the New Zealand referendum was that it was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the New Zealand electorate were asked simply to vote for the status quo or for an undefined change. The New Zealand people voted for change on the basis of some sentimental belief in the future and were then presented with a system that has caused great problems.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that Italy has had proportional representation in some shape or form for God knows how long and that it has had about 50 different Governments since the end of the second world war? Does not the cockeyed idea of PR come from the Euro-fanatics among the Liberal Democrats? It is part of the common market disease. We have had a basinful of it on account of the next Euro-elections—as recommended by the Liberal Democrats. I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm and ensure that Westminster elections are conducted according to the first-past-the-post system—and we shall knock the living daylights out of all of them.

Mr. Straw: I must admit that I have noticed rather less enthusiasm for proportional representation on the Labour side of the House since 1 May. I point out to my hon. Friend that the Labour party commission under Lord Plant—

Mr. Skinner: He is not standing for election.

Mr. Straw: No, he secured a position of permanent election in the other place. The Labour party commission

under Lord Plant recommended changes to the electoral system that led to John Smith's proposal for a referendum. I do not believe that my hon. Friend should be uncustomarily generous and give credit for this proposition, which was in our manifesto, to the Liberal Democrats.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: At a time of regrettable cynicism about politicians and growing confusion about democratic accountability, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the link between the Member of Parliament at Westminster and the constituency is widely recognised? Is it unfair of those who believe that the Labour party wishes to diminish the authority of Westminster to see tinkering with electoral systems as part of that campaign?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady's latter point is profoundly unfair: in no sense do we want a reduction in the authority of Westminster. However, I profoundly agree with her first point. If we look to continental systems, where there is no constituency basis, we see the development of political elites that are detached from the electorate. I have spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches and nine months on the Government Benches and I believe that it is our constituency base which gives vibrancy to British politics and a proper accountability.

Oral Answers to Questions — Young offenders

Mr. Peter Bradley: What plans he has to ensure that young offenders are asked to repair the damage they do to victims and to the community. [24616]

Mr. Straw: A key aim of our plans to reform the youth justice system is to encourage young offenders to face the consequences of their behaviour and to make amends to their victims. We have brought forward, in the Crime and Disorder Bill, proposals for a new reparation order, which will require the young offender to make reparation to the victim, where the victim desires it, or to the community. Reparation will also be an element of the new action plan order, the existing supervision order and the proposed final warning scheme.

Mr. Bradley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to crime, prevention is a great deal better than cure? Will he join me in commending the Wrekin community safety partnership, which has done much to divert young people from offending, to reduce levels of crime and to enhance the quality of life in the community in my constituency?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe to put the victim back at the centre of our judicial system? Does he accept that reparation orders will play a great role in doing exactly that?

Mr. Straw: I am happy to commend the work of the Wrekin community safety partnership.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we want to put the victim back at the centre of the system. The problem at present is that far too many offenders do not understand that there are victims of their crimes other than themselves. Part of the purpose of our youth justice


system is to ensure that young offenders face the fact that they have offended, that there is a victim, and that the victim is not them.

Mr. Evans: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is wrong to suggest that the majority of young people offend? The vast majority do not and it is a shame that they are all tarred with the same brush. In the context of the small proportion of young people who do offend, surely it is right that the victim should be properly consulted about reparation. We should endeavour to ascertain how he or she feels about how the young offender should pay back the price to society—or even to them, the victim.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision about boot camps? When the system was operating, it was shown to be extremely effective. The vast majority of my constituents, who are neighbours of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, thought that the idea of boot camps was long overdue. They will think it a great shame if they are done away with. Indeed, doing away with them might send the wrong message to young people, who might be given the impression that they can get away with crime.

Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that the victim is consulted; there are a number of schemes to extend that process.
The previous Administration set up two high-intensity schemes that were described as boot camps. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are nothing like the brutal boot camps that exist in the United States. There is one at the Thorn Cross young offender institution; the other is at Colchester military prison.
I had to close the Colchester military prison experiment on the ground of cost; each place was running at £32,000 compared with £17,000 in an ordinary young offender institution and £21,000 at Thorn Cross. Furthermore, the evidence is that the Thorn Cross experiment does a marginally better job than that at Colchester.

Oral Answers to Questions — Fire service

Mr. Gerrard: If he will make a statement on the fire service settlement for 1998–99. [24617]

Mr. George Howarth: The proposed settlement of 4.8 per cent. for the fire service has been widely welcomed in the fire service community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will set out his proposals for a final settlement for the standard spending assessment later today.

Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend will be aware that while an extra £4.4 million in London will help to stop some of the most serious cuts, there will still be a difficult financial situation for the London fire and civil defence authority. There may still be some cuts and the possibility of station closures. Will my hon. Friend tell us what further steps he may be able to take to help the authority get out of the difficulties? Will he look especially at the

fire service pension scheme, which was allowed to run into crisis by the previous Government? It is one of the root causes of the present financial difficulties.

Mr. Howarth: The settlement that we have proposed compares favourably with that proposed by the previous Government, who over the past three years announced settlements of 4.2, 1.5 and 0 per cent. respectively.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been concerns. Indeed, a section 19 application is currently under consideration by Her Majesty's chief inspector in respect of London. When I receive the inspector's recommendations on station closures and the arrangements for the Thames, they will be given serious consideration.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said repeatedly that we will not take any decisions that place the London public in danger of being in any way damaged or injured by fire, and that consideration will be uppermost in our minds.
There is concern throughout the country—not only in London—about the pension scheme and the costs involved. The previous Government set up a review and I hope shortly to publish the results of it, but there is no easy solution to the difficulties facing the fire service pension fund—and, for that matter, the police service pension fund.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree with—or will he dissociate himself from—the remarks made by the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union in the latest edition of "Firefighter", who said
many…fire authorities simply do not have the financial resources to provide a safe and effective service for the public"?
Will the Minister confirm that any fire station closure or appliance relocation could be done only with the approval of the Home Secretary, and even then only when he is satisfied that there will be no loss of safety or effectiveness to the public?

Mr. Howarth: Yes. Her Majesty's chief inspector examines every proposal and advises the Home Secretary and me—on every occasion—whether it is safe to go ahead with it. Whatever the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union may have said, the fire services are in quite good shape—and in even better shape since we announced last December the best settlement that they have had for many years.

Oral Answers to Questions — crime

Mr. Sheerman: What measures he will take to enhance the role of local authorities in tackling crime. [24619]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Crime and Disorder Bill will substantially improve the ability of local authorities to contribute to the fight against crime. The Bill includes measures that will require local authorities and the police service to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder problems, to draw up a strategy to tackle them and to publish targets for delivering the strategy. That process must be conducted on the basis of full consultation with local people and a wide range of other key partners. Local authorities will be


empowered to apply new orders to protect the community and required to establish multi-agency youth offending teams.
This is a substantial package of proposals which will put local authorities at the heart of action to combat criminal and anti-social behaviour. I am glad that local authorities have warmly welcomed them.

Mr. Sheerman: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Bringing the local community together in partnership in the fight against crime has been close to the hearts of Labour Members for a long time.
Did my hon. Friend listen to Professor Richard Sparks this morning on BBC Radio 4, and to his pessimistic view of what will happen in towns and cities over the next 10 or 15 years? Will she ensure that our community groups and the local authorities that lead them have targets for crime reduction year on year so that we can measure our success?

Ms Quin: There is an important reason for targets, as my hon. Friend has described. I am afraid that I did not hear the interview to which he refers—I may have been on a train at the time—but I am sure that the information will be taken into consideration. There have already been many successful examples of partnership, and it is on those that we want to build in the Bill.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Did the hon. Lady notice what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) said about the excellent work that he tells us is being done in his area without any statutory obligation? What is her estimate of the extra costs that would fall to local authorities in implementing their statutory duties under the Crime and Disorder Bill? Why should the country believe that she and the Home Secretary are serious when the Government are reducing social services budgets throughout the land?

Ms Quin: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about some of the partnerships that exist, but the Government want to ensure that those experiences and lessons are learnt throughout the country. That is why we want a statutory duty along the lines that we have included in the Crime and Disorder Bill—we believe that it will help to tackle crime throughout the country.
I should point out that the police and local authorities warmly welcome the proposals that we have placed before the House, on which we consulted widely in the past few months.
We estimate that the cost is likely to be about £130 million, but that does not take into account some of the savings that we believe can be made by reducing offending, and by such measures as the home detention curfew which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House at the end of last year.

Mr. Barry Jones: Senior citizens in my constituency tell me bitterly of their anxiety about young offenders who are involved in drug abuse, vandalism and, indeed, more serious crimes on the larger housing estates. Would it help local authorities if police authorities could recruit more special constables, thus freeing experienced officers to tackle the root of the problems, early rather than late?

Ms Quin: A strong partnership is developing which involves special constables, but we believe that the

problems described by my hon. Friend will be tackled effectively in the Bill. Although it is called the Crime and Disorder Bill, in many respects, the emphasis is on crime prevention and early intervention, which we think will help to stop such problems developing.

Oral Answers to Questions — Special Constables

Mr. Burns: If he will make a statement on the recruitment of special constables into the Chelmsford area. [24620]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): In the current financial year, 34 additional special constables have been recruited in the Chelmsford area. There are now 82 specials in the Chelmsford division. During specials week, I went to Essex and met some of the Essex specials with the chief constable, John Burrow, and I am very impressed by the increasingly professional nature of their work.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he share my concern—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and of West Chelmsford Labour party—about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining high-calibre special constables, despite the availability of funds? The Essex police are doing a tremendous job in seeking to recruit special constables in the Chelmsford area, but does the Minister feel that local authorities also have a role? If so, does he think that Chelmsford borough council is playing its full part?

Mr. Michael: I am surprised at the reported lack of enthusiasm of Liberal Democrats in Chelmsford for what is an essential act of citizenship—ordinary citizens acting as volunteers to help to make the community safer for others.
Yes, local authorities can play a role as, indeed, can the business sector. We would encourage all parts of the community to work together to meet the objective that—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out—we are setting out in the Crime and Disorder Bill, and to cut crime.

Oral Answers to Questions — Private Security Industry

Mr. Bob Russell: What estimate he has made of the number of people currently employed in the private security industry; and what proposals he has to regulate this industry. [24621]

Mr. Michael: In evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1995, the Policy Studies Institute put the total size of the industry at about 162,000 employees and over 8,000 firms in 1992.
The Government are committed to statutory regulation of the private security industry. While waiting for an opportunity to legislate, we are consulting and working with the industry and others on the best way in which to design regulation that is simple and effective.

Mr. Russell: So far, so good, but did not the previous Government also conduct a consultation exercise? This is the second such exercise, and I wonder when we can have a decision on some action.
Does the Minister agree that it is strange that, although someone cannot start up a taxi firm and become a taxi driver without being subjected to a number of checks in the public interest, people can leave prison, start up their own security firms—as, indeed, people have done—and to all intents and purposes, by their demeanour and their uniforms, give the impression of being police officers? Is it not time that such people were brought under some form of regulation, in the public interest?

Mr. Michael: Yes, we do think that there is something very odd about the situation. That is why we welcomed the Select Committee's recommendation on regulation, and why we were surprised when the previous Government, year after year, voted against amendments that we tabled to various Bills in order to introduce some form of regulation. We warned them that a new Government, with the pressure of legislation to tackle the whole criminal justice system, would not easily find an early legislative slot in order to take action that had long been needed. We will take such action as quickly as we can, however, and we believe that it is necessary.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not operating practices in the better-run parts of the private security industry be greatly helped by the introduction of a national identity card?

Mr. Michael: A national identity card does not necessarily resonate with what is required for the private security industry. One of the problems is that managers and owners of private firms and their employees are unregulated, and there is a lot of movement among employees. As my hon. Friend suggests, we need a private security industry that meets the standards of the best. The industry and the trade unions agree with us that legislation is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — Electoral Registration

Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on the advantages and disadvantages of a system of rolling electoral registration. [24622]

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware that I am chairing a working party that is examining rolling registers and other electoral issues.

Mr. Barnes: Are not the current static electoral registers out of date as soon as they come into use? Masses of people are missing from the registers, and many people who have moved or died are still included. We need a much more modern system. According to the figures showing the eligible population in England, 4.7 per cent. of people are missing from the electoral register, and in Richmondshire, the local government area represented by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), 15.8 per cent. of people are missing. Perhaps some politicians turn people off more than others. We need a modern, up-to-date, electoral registration system that is compatible with a mobile society.

Mr. Howarth: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on this subject over a number of years. He has raised concerns about the absence of people on the register due to the poll tax and for other reasons. The specific points

that he has raised will be examined by the working party, which met for the first time a couple of weeks ago and includes representatives from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. We are aware of the problems, and that we need to modernise our electoral registration system and the conduct of elections. I hope that we shall come up with a set of conclusions and recommendations that will resolve the problems that my hon. Friend describes.

Mr. Collins: Does the Minister recognise that a rolling registration process runs the risk of an increase in honest and dishonest mistakes due to multiple entries? Will he undertake not to support any mechanism that could increase the risk of electoral fraud?

Mr. Howarth: The integrity of our electoral system is of paramount importance to all of us, and I would not be party to any decision that undermined that. There would have to be a cut-off point at some realistic date so as to preserve the integrity of the system. Provided that we take those pointers into account, it should be possible to have a rolling register with a cut-off point before it comes into effect for any particular election.

Mr. Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the turnout, especially for local government and European elections, is significantly lower in this country than in other European countries, we should actively explore other radical new initiatives, such as electronic voting, voting in a wider variety of places, including supermarkets, and voting on a Sunday, which is considered on the continent to be the best way in which to maximise turnout because people do not have so many alternatives?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has established a working party that is considering the re-invigoration of local elections, and issues such as electronic voting form part of its considerations.
It is important to increase turnout in local elections because that in itself increases the authority and accountability of local government. My working party will also take those issues into account. While I would not rule out Sunday voting for all time, there are one or two changes in the pipeline already and it might be a little confusing to introduce too many changes at one go. For example, I do not suspect that Sunday voting would be a sensible option for the next round of European elections.

Oral Answers to Questions — Firearms Compensation

Mr. Flight: What has been the total amount of compensation paid to those handing in their firearms as a result of the recent firearms legislation; and if he will make a statement. [24623]

Mr. Michael: As at 21 January, £31.6 million had been paid to shooters and more than 28,000 payments have been made. A one month hand-in period for .22 handguns started yesterday, fulfilling our undertaking before the election and the overwhelming will of Parliament which was expressed in a free vote.

Mr. Flight: I and, I have found, many colleagues have had many complaints from constituents who have handed


in their weapons, but who have not received compensation for considerably longer than the 21 days average that is claimed by the Home Office. The Revenue charges people interest if they pay their taxes late. First, will the Minister undertake that if compensation is unduly late, people will receive interest? Secondly, could he confirm that in assessing retail values, the Home Office is not factoring in a charge that is equivalent to VAT? Some of my constituents complain that they are not receiving full retail value as a VAT equivalent has been deducted.

Mr. Michael: I must make it clear that we have no intention of paying interest, and neither had the previous Government. The arrangement is not a commercial transaction, but the fulfilment of a promise to pay compensation to shooters for the loss of their sport, and for the fact that they cannot use their weapons and ancillary equipment as they could before the legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman and some others underestimate the size of the task that was taken on by the previous Government, with our support. There were some 40,000 applicants. Some of them applied under the simpler parts of the scheme and some applied under the more complex parts. The rules are quite clear. All those who have handed in their guns and ancillary equipment will receive compensation in the fulness of time. We will pay the compensation as quickly as possible.

Mr. Mullin: Now that the ban on handguns is on the statute book, what are the Government's plans for reducing the huge quantity of shotguns in circulation and for the introduction of some sort of licensing system for air weapons which, as hon. Members will be aware, cause a great deal of low-level mayhem and some serious injuries?

Madam Speaker: The Minister is not required to answer that question as it does not relate to the main question.

Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister realise that he must be the only person in the country who thinks that this compensation scheme is being run fairly and efficiently? Everyone else knows that it is a shambles, and it is about to be made worse by the needless banning of .22 calibre pistols. The Minister told the House that there was no need for the Government to accept a 30-day time limit for compensation payments because payments would be made as quickly as possible. Will he agree to pay interest on all claims that are outstanding not for 30 days, but for three months?

Mr. Michael: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is simple and I have given it already. It is no, and the hon. Gentleman's Government would not have paid interest either. There is some inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's question. He is speaking about the legislation that was passed by his Government, and that is the legislation on which we have been compensating up to now. The .22 legislation relates to additional guns—about 10,000—that are to be handed in over the next month. [HON. MEMBERS: "A shambles."] It is not a shambles; the matter is being handled well. It is a major task which is being undertaken properly and as swiftly as possible. I am surprised by the pettiness of Opposition Members in a discussion on the removal of handguns from private possession to protect the British public.

Oral Answers to Questions — Youth Offending

Mr. Fitzpatrick: What measures he plans to implement to ensure that there is a framework for local action to tackle youth offending. [24624]

Mr. Straw: The Crime and Disorder Bill establishes new youth offending teams throughout the country, bringing the relevant local agencies together in partnership to work more effectively with young offenders. The Bill also establishes a youth justice board for England and Wales, which will provide a clear national framework for that local action to tackle youth offending.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I am sure that he knows that his proposals have been widely welcomed. However, it is also accepted that we need to be tough on the causes of offending. With that in mind, does he agree that, as part of the framework, we must have adequate resourcing of youth services, as well as promotion of education, training and employment opportunities for young people?

Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the work of the youth service, which is a much neglected service. The issue in all these cases—this applies generally throughout the public sector—is not just the money that is spent on the service, but how effectively that money is used. As we saw from an Audit Commission report last week for the police, the police forces that have been most effective in reducing crime have not necessarily been those that have had an increase in resources.

Mr. Clappison: I congratulate the Home Secretary on his good fortune in being in the Prime Minister's good books. We hope that relations with No. 11 are equally good. May not the Prime Minister have less reason to feel pleased with the Home Secretary if he considers local authority secure accommodation? Is it not true that, in the previous Parliament, when a substantial amount of extra local authority secure accommodation was being provided, the Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, promised that he would provide more? Is it not true that it was said that sending 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons rather than secure accommodation was a scandal? Is it not true that, under this Home Secretary, the Government are not providing a single extra local authority secure accommodation place, are set to continue remands of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prison accommodation long into the future and, on top of all that, have abandoned the promising experimental regime at Colchester? Is all that not proof that they have failed to deliver on a commitment?

Mr. Straw: Even by the standards of the Opposition Front-Bench team, that was a remarkably poorly researched question. The truth on secure accommodation is that, in 1991, the previous Administration promised a programme to increase the number of secure accommodation places by about 170 and it took them nearly seven years to achieve that. They also completely confused the legislation, with the result—until the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Bill—that some of those places were having to remain empty for 12 and 13-year-olds, while there were insufficient places for the


remands of 15 and 16-year-olds. We will take no lectures on the issue of secure accommodation for young people. We have proposed a national youth justice board. One of its tasks will be to sort out the present incoherent and expensive system of custody for young people.

Oral Answers to Questions — European Convention on Human Rights

Ms Beverley Hughes: What plans he has to implement the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. [24625]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Human Rights Bill gives effect to our manifesto commitment to incorporate the convention. It will enable everyone in the United Kingdom to enforce their convention rights before our courts. It will bring rights home to the British people. Our judges must be trained and our courts ready to implement the convention's incorporation.

Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and welcome the Government's initiative. He has rightly told us that the process of implementation will inevitably be lengthy, despite the Government's swift action. That makes the previous Government's failure all the more regrettable. When does he expect that the British people will be able to apply the protection of the convention in UK courts?

Mr. O'Brien: We want to ensure that this important step for giving British people rights is done in the best possible way and that all the facilities and training are in place. Therefore, we have not yet set a date for completing incorporation, but we want to ensure that it is done as quickly as possible because it is enormously important that we bring those rights home to the British people.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Those who approach the Prime Minister and ask his views on the introduction of privacy legislation are firmly told that he is against it, even by the back door. However, the Lord Chancellor—both in another place and elsewhere—has let it be known that he is fanatically in favour of judicially driven privacy law. The Home Secretary sits on the fence, a leg dangling on either side, waiting to see who will win. When will the Government speak with one voice and ensure that if there is to be privacy legislation, it emerges from this place and not from the law courts?

Mr. O'Brien: The shadow Home Secretary is somewhat confused, is he not? Does he not understand that the European convention on human rights applies in any event? Legislation will not change the substantive rights under the convention, but it will enable British people to enforce their rights in British courts. Why is the Conservative party so unwilling to allow the British people to enforce their rights under the European convention in the British courts?
The Labour party has always supported the freedom of the press. We want to ensure that the rights of the British people are properly enforced. Indeed, the shadow Lord Chancellor appears to be of that view, too. He said:
One thing you can say in favour of the Bill is that it domesticates the powers of the institution of the Convention with the result that our own judges are now making decisions instead of the judges in Strasbourg.

Why do some members of the Conservative party want to keep rights in Europe, rather than bringing them home?

Oral Answers to Questions — Car Accident Investigations

Mr. Hanson: If he will ensure that revised guidelines are issued to police forces with regard to the retention of vehicle evidence in car accident investigations.[24626]

Mr. Michael: The Home Office issued general guidance to forces on the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which includes the length of time material obtained in a criminal investigation should be retained. The retention of vehicle evidence is an operational matter, but we are discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service the implications of recent court decisions, including the Regina v. Beckford judgment on the retention of vehicle evidence.

Mr. Hanson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sarah Burton? She was killed in a car crash and the case went to court, but it collapsed because the police had destroyed the car that was needed in evidence. Although it is an operational matter for chief police officers, will my hon. Friend ensure that they introduce guidelines to ensure that cases such as Regina v. Beckford, and Sarah Burton, do not happen again?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has brought an important matter to the House. Indeed, it is partly as a result of a letter that he wrote to me that we have decided to look afresh at the issue. As he rightly said, these are operational decisions for chief constables, but we need to consider the implications. That is why we are discussing the matter with ACPO and the CPS.

Oral Answers to Questions — Age of Majority

Mr. Chope: What plans he has to lower the age of majority.[24627]

Ms Quin: The Family Law Reform Act 1969 reduced the age of majority to 18. The Government have no plans to change it.

Mr. Chope: I accept the Minister's response, but has she thought about the anomalies in this country, such as the age of majority being 16 in Scotland but 18 in England? In view of the much-publicised events over Christmas and the new year involving the reporting in Scotland of proceedings affecting 16 to 18-year-olds in England, will she think again about whether the age of majority in England should be the same as the age of majority in Scotland—whether that means reducing the age in England to that in Scotland, or raising the age in Scotland to that in England?

Ms Quin: Although we do not have any plans to change the system in England, we are studying the handling of cases involving juveniles before the courts, along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that our system means that although at the age of 18, members of the


public may vote for their elected representatives, they may not stand to be an elected representative of either this House or a council until they have reached the age of 21? They cannot indulge in a number of other activities until they reach the age of 16, 17, 18 or 21. There should be consistency in the ages at which people attain rights. Will my hon. Friend review the matter and carefully consider whether we should ensure that people attain rights at one age?

Ms Quin: We believe that it is important to examine the separate issues, and then to decide the most appropriate age that might apply in the circumstances. Although we do not have any plans to change the age at which people may stand as a candidate, as it seems to be very much in line with practice across Europe, the

working party on electoral procedures, which was mentioned earlier and is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), may wish to examine that issue.

Mr. Bercow: Has the Minister received any representations on lowering the age of majority from the Minister without Portfolio—who, in a desperate search for supporters for the millennium dome project, has very wisely hired the services of an eight-year-old boy?

Ms Quin: The citizens of the future are important voices to listen to in that process, but I have received no such representations.

Iraq

3.30

Mr. Michael Howard: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments on Iraq.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this opportunity to update the House on the latest developments.
On Saturday, I held a two-hour meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss how best to deal with Iraq's continuing refusal to grant full and unrestricted access to United Nations Special Commission teams. The meeting formed part of intensive efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
I met Russian Foreign Minister Primakov on 26 January, and I spoke to French Minister Vedrine on 29 January. Our permanent five partners are also active: President Chirac has sent an envoy to Iraq; the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister is returning from there after his talks with Tariq Aziz. We support those latest efforts to end the deadlock.
The United Kingdom is currently taking the lead in the Security Council. We have prepared a draft Security Council resolution, which we shall be discussing with our Security Council partners. The resolution makes it clear that Saddam Hussein must obey the will of the international community. He must allow full and unrestricted access to all UNSCOM teams and reveal all details of his weapons of mass destruction programmes.
Saddam Hussein is persisting with his attempts to thwart UNSCOM's vital task of destroying and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM cannot carry out its duties while Saddam continues to deny access to presidential sites. Neither can there be any deadlines for UNSCOM to complete its work. The Security Council must be assured that all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related facilities have been destroyed. Even then, UNSCOM may have to continue working and monitoring for some time, to ensure that they are not rebuilt.
Saddam must be left in no doubt about our determination to secure his compliance with Security Council resolutions. Although we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, we have not ruled out, nor will we rule out, the use of force. The best way for us to achieve a diplomatic solution is to prove to Saddam that we are prepared to use all means necessary to ensure that he complies. As a precautionary measure, HMS Invincible has been deployed to the Gulf and has engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces in the northern Gulf waters. In due course, it will be replaced by HMS Illustrious.
The United Kingdom Government are very aware of the sufferings of the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. The difficulties and hardships that they face result from Saddam's failure to meet his international obligations. Even when offered a chance to provide for his people through oil-for-food arrangements,

he repeatedly refused to avail himself of the opportunity. Since the scheme's introduction, he has repeatedly obstructed its implementation. The United Kingdom has been in the lead in proposing and steering through the Council resolutions on oil for food. We are especially pleased that the Secretary-General will be reporting to the Security Council later today with recommendations to improve and expand that programme. We shall give his proposals our strong support.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a serious threat. Iraq has developed the know-how and equipment to produce biological and chemical weapons on an industrial scale. Despite all that UNSCOM has achieved, we cannot be certain that important parts of that capability are not being retained. Without effective UNSCOM monitoring, Iraq could produce enough anthrax every week to fill two missile warheads and could within weeks be producing a large volume of nerve gas. It is vital for regional and international peace and security that Saddam Hussein is stopped. He should not underestimate our resolve to make sure that he is stopped.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. As he knows, we share his determination to take whatever steps are necessary to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and relieve the world of the threat that he will use weapons of mass destruction. We all hope that that can be achieved by diplomatic means. If, however, force proves necessary, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House, not least for the sake of the British service men and women whose lives may be put at risk, that clear objectives will be set?
The Foreign Secretary told us a little about the new Security Council resolution that the Government intend to sponsor and to which reference was made in this morning's newspapers. Does he agree that it would be far better if new initiatives of this kind were reported to the House rather than leaked to the newspapers? How would the new resolution fit in with resolution 687? Is it the Government's position that resolution 687 provides sufficient authority for military action to be taken? If so, what is the purpose of the new resolution?
Finally, I welcome from the Conservative Benches what the Foreign Secretary said about his support for the proposal made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the expansion of the oil-for-food programme. We agree with what the Foreign Secretary said about the suffering of the people of Iraq. It is not with the people of Iraq that we quarrel, but with Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support. In response to his last point, it should be understood in all corners that there is no sanction against the import of food or medicines by Saddam Hussein. The international community has at no stage sought to stand in the way of those essential humanitarian supplies. On the contrary, the international community has a better record in trying to provide the oil which can pay for them than Saddam Hussein.
Of course, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be clear objectives for any use of force. He would not expect me to say what they are, and he will understand that they are kept under close review.
As for the Security Council resolution, I felt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a bit hard in accusing us of leaking it when we formally made clear what we were doing. There are Security Council resolution initiatives by Britain every week, and it would not be normal to report them in advance to the House on every occasion. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the purpose of the new resolution. He is quite right to say that resolution 687 and the successor resolutions repeatedly condemned the Iraqi violations of the terms on which the Gulf war ended. He is absolutely right to say that there is plenty of authority in those resolutions for pressure to be put on Saddam Hussein.
However, it is very important that it is clearly seen that it is not just the United States or not just Britain, or not even just the permanent five that are concerned about Saddam Hussein' s flouting of those resolutions; it is important that the whole of the Security Council makes it clear that it condemns the present impasse and the obstruction of the UN monitors. It must be understood not only that Saddam Hussein poses an immediate and very serious threat to countries in his region, but that if the Security Council resolutions cannot be enforced, the whole authority of the Security Council is undermined.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not clear that if, as we all hope, Saddam Hussein backs down over weapons inspections, it will be only because of the threat of military force? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Saddam Hussein, the murderous dictator, has never backed down without the threat or deployment of military force? In respect of critics in the House, is it not clear that, had we listened to them at the time, the liberation of Kuwait would never have taken place in 1991? Should we not bear that in mind when we are denounced as warmongers?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that if, as he rightly said, we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, who were the very first victims of that murderous regime, it is absolutely essential that any military action should concentrate first and foremost on the weapons of mass destruction and that, if possible, the people of Iraq should not become the victims of bombing? Although military action can provide no guarantees, it is important that the United States, ourselves and others involved in such action should bear it in mind not only that is military action possible, but that there may well be a need for propaganda campaigns to demonstrate that the international community is acting for one reason alone, as stated by my right hon. Friend: to destroy the weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that Saddam Hussein uses fear and force quite explicitly as a political weapon. It is therefore important that we make sure that he understands that we are prepared to go all the way, if necessary, in enforcing his compliance with Security Council resolutions. The paradox is that if we want a diplomatic solution, we have to demonstrate that we are prepared to use military force. Those who counsel against military force, but want a diplomatic solution, make it more difficult to obtain by undermining the credibility and possibility of military force.
Finally, I echo what my hon. Friend said about the oppression of the Iraqi people. Nobody has done more to increase their suffering than Saddam Hussein. As we

consider the importance of dismantling his chemical and biological weapons, we should remember that this year, it will be 10 years to the year since Saddam Hussein used nerve gas against his own people in Halabja, and that a leader who is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people will be prepared to use them against others.

Mr. David Heath: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that there is a wide consensus that those who cheat on international law will not and must not prosper? Does he agree that every possible diplomatic avenue must be explored strenuously and with expedition to secure agreement, particularly with Mr. Primakov and Mr. Vedrine, so that all the international community is moving in the same direction? Will he continue—as far as is consistent with military security—to make clear the full horror and scope of the terrifying destructive capacity of the aggregation of weapons of mass destruction on which Iraq has embarked? Finally, in extremis, does he recognise that Britain must not flinch from joining the international community in taking effective but proportionate action? If he does, he will have our support, but in turn he must make clear the political objectives of such action and the end result that would be desired.

Mr. Cook: Let me respond straight away to the hon. Gentleman's final question. The objective of any action would be to achieve compliance with the Security Council resolutions. That compliance is easily measured by unconditional and unrestricted access to the sites that UNSCOM wishes to visit. The reason why we must achieve that unconditional and unrestricted access is precisely to prevent Saddam Hussein from retaining the capacity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Currently, he has 17 tonnes of growth media for biological weapons agents. He cannot be allowed to retain that capacity. We must find the material and destroy it, as the UNSCOM team has done on other occasions.
Of course, we shall continue to have close dialogue with Russia and France on the issue. They both share our objective of making sure that UNSCOM is able to operate effectively. Nothing would do more to improve our chances of getting Saddam Hussein to back down than confronting him with the unity of the permanent five.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What happens when a bomb hits 17 tonnes of biological agents? What happens to the spores when a bomb hits an anthrax installation?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue which will be addressed in the targeting plans. I assure him that if military force is used, any civilian damage or threat will be reduced as much as is within our power.

Mr. Dalyell: Will they be targeted?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend must not suggest that we are planning that planes will target the dumps that he describes. There is a lot of technology required for chemical and biological weapons that does not necessarily require the agents. My hon. Friend must accept the logic of his question, which admits that Saddam Hussein possesses such weapons. My hon. Friend was among those who condemned Saddam Hussein when he used


such weapons against the Kurds in 1988. He cannot accept our standing back while Saddam Hussein retains that capability.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while the Conservatives accept the Government's support for the Americans, the issue goes further than that? There is a great need to keep the same alliance with the Arab nations surrounding Iraq that we have had before. Does he realise that one of the major criticisms that holds back certain Arab opinion is that we appear to have two voices—one against Iraq and another against Israel? If we were seen to be pursuing the United Nations Security Council resolutions against Israel, it might be much easier for the Americans and our Government to maintain the alliance that we want. Many Arab countries understand even better than we do the dastardliness of the Hussein regime.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I recognise the basis of his concern. We are trying to achieve the maximum understanding and support in the Arab world for our policy towards Saddam Hussein. I hope to be in contact with some of those countries later this week. The right hon. Gentleman is also correct to say that there is a perceived link between the two issues in some Arab capitals. We have repeatedly and robustly criticised the Government of Israel for their obstruction of the middle east peace process. We have called on them repeatedly to refrain from gestures that obstruct that process, such as the expansion of settlements, and to carry out a realistic and acceptable further redeployment that would put the peace process back on the road. We shall continue to do everything that we can to remove those obstructions to the middle east peace process. I tell every Arab leader whom I meet that they are more at risk than anyone from Saddam Hussein's ambitions and are on the front line from the chemical and biological weapons if he is allowed to retain them.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Arab countries understand better than any others the difference between the noxious and loathsome policies of the Israeli Government and the internationally aggressive and dangerous policies of Saddam Hussein? Does he further accept that it is strange that an hon. Friend should intervene to say that we must not attack Saddam Hussein because he is so dangerous that we dare not? Will he pay no attention to those who scurried off seven years ago to truckle favour with Saddam Hussein when he was occupying Kuwait and holding British citizens hostage?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in going to the United Nations and seeking to secure a resolution to authorise the actions that the Government regard as appropriate, he is following Labour party policy of the past eight years? The Labour party has consistently based its policy on support for the Security Council. That support was inserted into the Labour party constitution by certain hon. Members, who seem to forget that they did so. We do not want war, but let Saddam Hussein understand that if he brings us to war, it will be his responsibility.

Mr. Cook: I am not sure whether many of my right hon. Friend's questions were addressed to me and not to

others who prompted such observations. I agree with him particularly on two points. First, it is important that everybody in politics in Britain and in the international community shows unity on this question. What encourages Saddam Hussein is a sign of division in the international community. We know that he began the original obstruction because of the appearance of division among the permanent five in October. It is important that we convince him that there is a unity of resolve and that he must recognise it.
Secondly, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of the United Nations both to Labour party policy and to the international community. If Saddam Hussein is allowed to ignore and flout Security Council resolutions, there will not be much point in the Security Council meeting on future occasions to pass resolutions.

Sir Teddy Taylor: If we do not know where these dreadful weapons of mass destruction are located, will the Minister explain how on earth we shall go about destroying them when the British and American Governments go all the way? Will he also indicate whether the Government have sought the opinions of the Government of Iran and their people, who suffered hugely in the Iran-Iraq war, when the Iraqi dictatorship, at the same time as it was killing Kurds, appeared to have the full and undivided support of the United States of America and indeed, much of the western world?

Mr. Cook: On that count, the hon. Gentleman needs to answer for the Government who were in charge of Britain at the time. Many Opposition Members at that time were indeed critical of the tolerance that was shown to Saddam Hussein. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that—possibly—if a more robust attitude had been shown to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, we might not now be having this exchange in the late 1990s. Having recognised the threat, and having also—perhaps—understood better than the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in government could have done in the 1980s the extent to which Saddam Hussein is willing to be aggressive and the way in which he took over a neighbouring country, it is important that we do not leave him with such a capability again.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, while there is absolute unanimity in the House on the hatred of Saddam Hussein's regime and the dangers that might follow from it, Britain and America are not the international community? Nor, indeed, does he speak for the Security Council, which has not authorised military action by two countries only, contrary to the charter. He does not speak for the European Union, of which Britain is President, and in which there are different views. Jean-Pierre Chevenement, a member of the French Foreign Affairs Commission, recently came out very strongly against intervention. My right hon. Friend does not speak for the Gulf war coalition, because the Arab League is opposed to it.
Before British troops and service men are exposed to what would be another war with Iraq, will my right hon. Friend give a clear undertaking that there will be not just a series of statements but a debate in the House, in which the Government's objectives, of which he says today he cannot tell us, can be fully explored, and in which the


House can determine whether it wishes to follow this course of action, which will inevitably cause many more casualties among not only American and British troops but Iraqi civilians?

Mr. Cook: The question of a debate in the House is a matter for the usual authorities. I, personally, would have no problem in defending our position and putting forward the case that I have made to the House today at greater length. I did not say that I could not tell the House what our objectives are. They are quite clear: to ensure compliance with Security Council resolutions. What I cannot tell the House, and what the House would not reasonably expect me to tell it, are our precise targeting plans in the event of any military action.
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that the United States and the United Kingdom are not the international community. That is precisely why the Government, whom he supports, are taking the lead in the Security Council to secure a further resolution, to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein is taking on the international community. The greater the unity that we can achieve in the international community, the better the chance we have of winning.

Mr. John Wilkinson: If the most powerful democracies in the world cannot curb the aggressive potential of Saddam Hussein, will it not be a grave precedent for the international community and for the world order generally? Is it not the case that there are other countries with despotic Governments who are equally capable of flouting United Nations regimes on the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction? Would they not gain encouragement were Saddam Hussein to remain in power and to increase his arsenal?
Therefore, is it not crucial that the Foreign Secretary secure that wider consensus, beyond the permanent five of the Security Council that he spoke about? Is he, in any sense, encouraged by the attitude that he discovered in his French counterpart, given that the French are leading members of Western European Union, a collective security organisation, and given that the French, with ourselves, are the best able among the European countries to project the military power necessary to underpin the diplomatic efforts?

Mr. Cook: I obviously agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said in response to several questions, what is at stake is not just the issue of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the authority of the Security Council and, therefore, its ability to intervene on any future occasion when we are faced with similar threats.
I have learnt from my conversations with my French opposite number and my Russian opposite number that they both deeply share our concern at the way in which Saddam Hussein is flouting the resolutions. That feeling of impatience is especially felt by the Russians, who feel that he has broken an agreement that they understood that they had achieved in November 1997.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I support everything that my right hon. Friend has said in the House today, as I did the answer to the private notice question last week by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).
I welcome our intention to return to the Security Council to obtain a further resolution. The middle east countries that may find it difficult, in isolation, to say publicly what we know they are saying privately, may find themselves able, in a debate on a new Security Council resolution, to say exactly where they stand.
I welcome our intention to support the report of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, which said that oil for aid should be increased from $2 billion to approximately $3.2 billion. I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend said that we shall support that move when the Secretary-General brings the matter to the Security Council.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the position that we have taken. I emphasise that expanding the oil-for-food programme is in no way a concession or a carrot to Saddam Hussein. Indeed, he hates the oil-for-food programme because it takes away his alibi about the hardship and the suffering of the Iraqi people. Interestingly, it is the Security Council, not Saddam Hussein, that at present is seeking a way to bring help to the people of Iraq.

Sir David Madel: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, if the new British resolution before the Security Council does not get the support of the Security Council, existing Security Council resolutions allow the use of force as a last resort?

Mr. Cook: There are plenty of resolutions, and those resolutions clearly provide a basis for the authority of the Security Council, and a basis for authority to enforce the Security Council resolution. However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of our efforts—which are intensive—in New York at present, is to ensure that we find as tough as possible a text that is acceptable to members of the Security Council. We believe that, irrespective of the legal niceties, it is important that we carry a resolution that demonstrates the condemnation of the international community.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Has not the threat of force been counter-productive to the real aim, which is to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Did my right hon. Friend see that, in a few days, one in 20 of the Iraqi population signed up to support the regime because of the threats from the west? Would it not be a misuse of force to slaughter a "Dad's army" to strengthen a dictator?

Mr. Cook: I fear that my hon. Friend is mistaken if he imagines that the chemical and biological capabilities of Saddam Hussein are equivalent to a Dad's army. I agree with him that it would be entirely desirable if we got rid of Saddam Hussein, and if I had the opportunity, I would certainly vote for that outcome. The tragedy is that Saddam Hussein makes sure that the Iraqi people do not get the chance of that vote, and do not get the chance of choosing a leader for themselves.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Leading on from that point, everyone in the House agrees that there is no argument with the people of Iraq. The argument of the international community is with the regime and, more personally, with Saddam Hussein. Will the right hon. Gentleman further personalise the argument? I am not a


student of international law, but there should be means by which we could do that. In Bosnia, the President of the Republika Srpska was indicted as a war criminal. Are there means in the United Nations whereby we could take on the argument in Iraq and indict Saddam Hussein? Should not there be such means, if they do not already exist?

Mr. Cook: In the case of the Bosnian war criminals, a specific international war crimes tribunal was appointed on the authority of the United Nations to try those who carried out war crimes during the conflict in Bosnia and more widely. No such war crimes tribunal has been appointed in relation to the Gulf war or the activities in Iraq. One of the positions adopted by the Government, in a rather more advanced form than under the previous Administration, is strongly to support the creation of an international criminal court on a permanent basis. Were such an international criminal court already created, it might well decide that Saddam Hussein and those around him merited trial.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the United States is calling for military action, and the only country that supports that is Britain? No other country has endorsed the use of its own forces for that purpose, and none has offered the use of its territory from which to launch an attack on Iraq, other than Kuwait. No Arab country has come forward to support the proposal. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the use of force against Iraq will strengthen the position of Saddam, that it will probably cause enormous problems in relation to the Arab world, and that there are no internal opposition forces in Iraq that support the idea of bombing raids on their country? Does he not think that we should be looking towards a truly peaceful solution to the problem?

Mr. Cook: Yes, of course we would want to look for a truly peaceful solution to the problem. In my hon. Friend's rather lengthy question, it was difficult to see where the germs of that peaceful solution were to be found. If we want a successful diplomatic solution, we must show that we are prepared to use military force if it is necessary. I recall—because at the time of the Matrix Churchill trial, I went through all the papers—the vigorous and eloquent way in which my hon. Friend condemned Saddam Hussein for using nerve gas against the Kurds in Halabja. Having condemned Saddam Hussein for using nerve gas on that occasion, my hon. Friend must understand why we cannot now walk away and leave Saddam in possession of nerve gas.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the report in The Mail on Sunday yesterday by Chris McLaughlin, which purported to give details about the SAS already being in Iraq? Will he join me in condemning any journalism that puts the lives of our troops in danger when sensitive preliminary operations are possibly being undertaken?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that that report was probably as unreliable as most reports that I have read in The Mail on Sunday recently.

Mr. George Galloway: The first to use chemical weapons in Iraq was the Royal Air Force,

under the command of Winston Churchill in the 1920s. [Interruption.] That is a matter of fact. The reason why we know that there is the potential for making weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is that British and European companies sold Iraq those capacities in years gone by. The Iraqis will be relieved to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the British Government have no quarrel with them, but are we not in danger of killing them in order to save them? The United Nations Children's Fund, the World Health Organisation and Harvard medical teams have all reported that more than 1 million people have died over the past seven years as a result of sanctions.
Will the Foreign Secretary address this question pointedly? Does he understand that, in the Arab street, no one can understand why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction, regularly to defy international law, and regularly to occupy other people's countries without a scent of sanctions being imposed, let alone a single bullet being fired in its direction—

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Israel is not a dictatorship.

Mr. Galloway: That is not how it looks to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, nor how it looked to the Jordanians, the Syrians or the Egyptians under Israeli occupation. It is these double standards that turn the stomachs of Arabs, Muslims and right-thinking people the world over—the hypocrisy of British and American policy.

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree that we should have regard to the interests of the Palestinian people. The Prime Minister met Chairman Arafat earlier this week to discuss the progress of the talks in Washington. Britain and the European Union remain resolved to try to achieve progress in the middle east peace process. The EU is the major funder of the Palestinian economy and of those activities that relate to the peace process. It is not reasonable, therefore, to criticise either Britain or the European Union for turning their back on the Palestinian people—

Mr. Galloway: What about sanctions?

Mr. Cook: I was just going to add that no one at any stage in those conversations raised with us, on behalf of the Palestine National Authority, the question of sanctions against Israel. On the contrary, the Palestinians are desperate to achieve progress on their economy—progress with which sanctions against Israel would be wholly inconsistent.
Finally, we are dealing with a country that cannot reasonably be compared with Israel. I have many criticisms of the Israeli Government, but we should remember that they were elected with the support of half the population of Israel. Half the population, to be sure, voted for contrary policies—but they had the chance to do so. It would be extremely helpful if Saddam Hussein were even to contemplate allowing his people the same expression of their democratic will. Until he does so, he is in a very different category from Israel.

Mr. Llew Smith: As military action failed on the previous occasion to remove Saddam


Hussein, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what is new, and why it should be successful on this occasion? And as military action on the previous occasion successfully killed so many of the Iraqi population, can the Foreign Secretary inform the House what is new, and why history should not repeat itself?

Mr. Cook: One of the difficulties of carrying the international community or the Arab world with us in the robust position that we have adopted against Saddam Hussein is the fact that the achievements of the United Nations are so often written off. Over the six years of its existence, UNSCOM most certainly has not been a failure. On the contrary, it has dismantled more weapons than were ever dismantled during the Gulf war; including 38,000 chemical weapon munitions, 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 special missile warheads for chemical and biological weapons, and a whole factory dedicated to producing biological weapons. The reason why we are still here six years later, with sanctions and a monitoring regime, is Saddam Hussein. It is vital that we do not walk away until the job is completed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not one of the impediments to bringing about an internal insurrection by the civil population in Iraq the fact that they fear an interregnum? Why do not the western democracies, in particular the United Nations, substantially reinforce the international credibility of the Iraqi National Congress, one of whose main bases is here in London—the other being in Washington? That, surely, is the way forward in terms of offering an alternative Government to Iraq. When the Iraqi people see that there is a credible organisation outside that is internationally recognised, they may find the courage to rise up and deal with this tyrant once and for all.

Mr. Cook: The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), has met representatives of the Iraqi opposition, and we shall continue that dialogue. In fairness to the Iraqi people, we should not underestimate the immense dangers and problems of trying to achieve what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) described as an uprising against Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein explicitly and deliberately uses fear and brutality as a political weapon, so it is not surprising that many people in his country are not prepared to take a stand against him. Their silence should not be taken as a sign of support.

Ann Clwyd: I believe that my right hon. Friend speaks for the majority of hon. Members and the people of Britain when he says that the main aim is to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with United Nations resolutions. If Saddam Hussein had allowed UNSCOM to do its job, in which it has so far been very successful, we would not now face this problem.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Saddam Hussein continues to flout other United Nations resolutions? For example, he continues to repress the Kurds in the north and to carry out ethnic cleansing—he has just

thrown nearly 2,000 Kurds out of the Iraqi cities into the north. Countless other UN resolutions are also being flouted; it is not this one alone.
I chair the group Indict. Our main aim is to bring Saddam Hussein and eight of his closest henchmen before an international tribunal on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We have the support of the Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister and President Clinton, and we would welcome further Government support. Many people in Iraq are very much opposed to Saddam Hussein's rule and would like the west's support. In the past, we have encouraged the Kurds, but we have always let them down. They have been involved in several uprisings, but we have never been there behind them. Please will my right hon. Friend give the Iraqi opposition the support that they deserve to get on with the job?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to repeat the Government's expression of support for any moves that would bring Saddam Hussein to book—in particular, for the organisation to which my hon. Friend refers. She touches on a profoundly important point, on which we should all reflect. Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has shown himself to have a cavalier disregard for the lives, civil liberties and rights of his people to live a normal life. He has killed thousands of his people, using what weapons and military force he has. We should be in no doubt that if he acquired the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, he is one of the rulers who might well be prepared to use it.

Mr. John Hutton: May I offer my full support for the Government's actions to date, to ensure full Iraqi compliance with the terms of UN Security Council resolutions? In denying access to sites in Iraq, the Iraqi dictator is continuing to flout the Security Council's authority. He must not be allowed to succeed in that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Iraqi dictator was let off the hook, a terrible price would be paid by not only the world community, but the people of the middle east?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's last point is very important. It is the countries that border Iraq that are most at risk. Privately, many of them are as anxious as any hon. Member to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not the victor in the present crisis.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask your advice? As you know, last week I asked for an emergency debate and there was a private notice question. Today, there has been another private notice question, which I welcome. The Foreign Secretary says that he has no objection to such a debate, but the difficulty for the House is that making war is a royal prerogative—it requires no parliamentary consent. Our forces might be engaged in a conflict without the House having had any opportunity to consider the matter.
Time is short, as the diplomatic options are clearly running out. I shall not ask for an answer now, but will you, Madam Speaker, consider how, from the Chair, you can protect the right of the House to have a debate on this matter, such as occurred at the time of Suez, the Falklands and the Gulf war? I was present at and interested in all those debates.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It is obviously related.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes. Many hon. Members would greatly welcome an early debate on Iraq, to enable the House to demonstrate its overwhelming support for the Government's policy.

Madam Speaker: I take seriously the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I shall of course look into the matter. It is a very serious situation, and I have no doubt that the Government will want to come to the House before taking any further action.
I am also grateful for the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The Foreign Secretary is present in the Chamber, and perhaps one day we shall have a major debate about those issues.

Sir Sydney Chapman: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that, between the previous sitting of the House and today, this place has been occupied virtually continuously by people inspecting and repairing the ceiling of this august Chamber. I hope that you will allow me, as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, to put on record the Committee's thanks to the craftsmen who worked literally every hour of the weekend to ensure that our proceedings were not disrupted. I also thank the Officers of the House, from the Serjeant at Arms and the Director of Works onwards, who took the remedial, urgent and necessary action with great expedition.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that we all appreciate the work that was carried out over the weekend.

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [29th January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [29 January]:
That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 19th January be varied so that—

(a) the fourth and fifth days allotted under the Order [15th January] to proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following table, and
(b) each part of the proceedings in Committee on those days shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the table.



TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Fourth day
Clauses 45 to 49
4.30 p.m.



Clauses 50 and 51 and amendments to Clause 52 apart from any to insert words at the end of line 7 on page 27 of the Bill
6.00 p.m.



Clause 52, so far as not disposed of
7.00 p.m.



Clause 53 to 61
8.30 p.m.



Clauses 53 to 61
8.30 p.m.



Clauses 62 to 73, Schedule 4 and Clauses 74 to 79
10.00 p.m.


Fifth day
Clauses 80 to 89 and
7.00 p.m.



Clauses 90 to 104 and schedule 5
8.00 p.m.



Clauses 105 to 108, Schedule 6 and clause 109
9.00 p.m.



Clauses 110, Schedule 7, clauses 111 to 117 and Schedule 8
10.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 26 January].

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 45

REGULATION OF PROCEDURE

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 288, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—
'(7) Any remaking or revision of standing orders shall not come into effect unless a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 292, in clause 49, page 26, line 17, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 19 and insert—
'not have effect until a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall be extremely brief, as time is short as a result of the private notice question. Clause 45 sets out the conditions for providing and remaking standing orders in the Assembly. Interestingly, clause 45(2) says:
But subsection (1) is subject to any other provision of this Act or any other enactment which regulates, or provides for the regulation of, the procedure of the Assembly (or of committees of the Assembly or sub-committees of such committees).
The interesting feature of the subsection is that it makes explicit Parliament's continuing power to pass Acts to regulate the standing orders of the Welsh Assembly. My first question to the Minister is why that subsection, which reasserts Parliament's powers so explicitly, is necessary at that point in the Bill, if at all. It seems a little strange.
Amendment No. 288 is simply a probing amendment that suggests that, if we are to have the ultimate power, we should have an on-going, neater power to regulate the Assembly's standing orders. Our amendment would add a new subsection, suggesting that any remaking or revision of standing orders shall not come into effect until a resolution of both Houses has been passed.
That would balance what is suggested by the Government in clause 49. It states that commissioners will draw up the draft standing orders, which will then be submitted to the Secretary of State who, according to clause 49(3), can make
such modifications as he considers appropriate.
If the Secretary of State is to have that power over the initial standing orders of the Assembly, we rather think that that power should be regulated by the House of Commons. We have suggested that the initial standing orders should not have effect until a draft thereof has been approved by the resolution of each House of Parliament, and that constitutes amendment No. 292.
As things stand, the two clauses seem to be rather unclear in their ultimate intention. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I consider neither amendment to be appropriate as both would impinge on the power that the assembly will have to determine its standing orders. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is correct to say that the Secretary of State will produce the first standing orders once he has considered advice from the commissioners. Subsection (5) provides that the standing orders can be subject to revision by the assembly. Indeed, they can be remade by it.
Given the way in which we have constructed the Bill, we have every confidence that the assembly will be able to run its own business without having reference to the House of Commons. To have continual reference, every time the assembly wanted to change its standing orders, to the House of Commons so as to seek its approval would be inappropriate. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: Why do we need subsection (2)?

Mr. Griffiths: I was rather puzzled when it became clear that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make such a point about the subsection. I still cannot see that it has any real relevance to the amendments. I shall perhaps have a further discussion with him in more congenial surroundings to ascertain exactly what he is trying to get at.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

EQUAL TREATMENT OF ENGLISH AND WELSH LANGUAGES

Dr. John Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 392, in page 25, line 31, leave out from 'effect' to 'to' in line 32.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 394, in page 25, line 32, leave out 'reasonably'.

New clause 15—Translation of Assembly proceedings—
'(1) The Assembly shall make provision for proceedings and documents to be translated from Welsh to English and English to Welsh.
(2) Translation of oral proceedings shall be simultaneous and available to all members, staff and visitors.
(3) Translation of written documents of the Assembly shall be available at the earliest practical opportunity.'.

Dr. Marek: I welcome the new timetable, which enables us to debate many more of the clauses than hitherto would have been possible. I hope to be able to contain my remarks to within two minutes so as to allow other Members to speak, followed perhaps by a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister.
The purpose behind my amendment is to cut out weasel words. It turns, of course, on the English and Welsh languages. Subsection (1) reads,
so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable.
That really means that Welsh is not on the same level as the English language. Yet we have the Welsh Language Act 1993, which is an equality measure. That means that we put both languages on the same level.
When Members of the Assembly utter words in one language, they have slavishly to be translated into the other language, whether that is required to be done or not. It may be that some assembly committees consisting only of Members representing the south-east of the Principality would work in the English language. The minutes may be bilingual, but the Members could work in the English language. If a meeting were held in private, it could be held in the English language. Equally, meetings not open to the public could be held in the Welsh language in north-west Wales. They would not necessarily have to be conducted in the English language.
Equality does not mean that what is written or said in one language must necessarily be translated into the other language. There is inequality of esteem, parity and status. The Welsh Language Act 1993 gives equality to the Welsh language. The words that I have mentioned in the Bill detract from that equality. Ministers should go away and think about it. There is nothing wrong with leaving out the clause. It would allow the national assembly to give proper status to the Welsh language as and when necessary.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall speak about the importance of the equal use of the two languages. We should ensure that the essential issues are considered and make it clear that the right and the ability of Members to use the Welsh language in all debates and committees will be unconditional. There should be no question about whether it is convenient or acceptable that a Member uses the Welsh language. Instantaneous translation equipment and facilities must be available even when small groups meet in sub-committees and so on. That is the only way to ensure that we normalise the use of the Welsh language. That is what it is all about. Instantaneous translation equipment is sometimes regarded as a facility for the person who wishes to use the Welsh language. It should not be seen in those terms; it is there for the person who is among that unfortunate section who are not bilingual.
There will, of course, be constant media coverage of the activities of the assembly, including television and radio coverage. It is important that, when Welsh is being used in a debate or Committee meeting, the feed from the translation is made available to the English media, so that there is no problem with their not being able to make use of clips, in news coverage and so on, of speeches made by those who are using the Welsh language. That is

essential. It is terribly important that the assembly establishes the Welsh language not just as a high-status language but as a normal language.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Sit down.

Mr. Dafis: Because the hon. Gentleman is telling me to sit down, I shall do so.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Briefly, I draw the Committee's attention to new clause 15, which says:
Translation of oral proceedings shall be simultaneous and available to all members, staff and visitors.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government are totally committed to the principle of equality. We believe that, in clause 46, we have provided for English and Welsh to be treated equally. We believe that that can be achieved by having regard to the Welsh Language Board guidelines issued under the Welsh language Act 1993. The advisory group is looking at all those issues in relation to the use of the language. We should expect the National Assembly for Wales to provide for equal treatment in all its proceedings in the appropriate way.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Surely the word "practicable" covers that eventuality. Doubling it up with the word "reasonably" seems biased against the equal use of the Welsh language. That concern was embodied in Plaid Cymru's amendment. I ask the Minister to consider whether we need the second word.

Mr. Griffiths: Hon. Members are being a little pedantic about the use of the English language. Given that the advisory group will look at all those issues, and what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), I hope that we can accept the spirit behind our debate. We should expect the assembly to operate on proper principles of equal treatment for the Welsh and English languages. On those grounds, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Dr. Marek: That is only just about acceptable. It is all very well to complain of pedantry about the English language; we have been quite pedantic about the Welsh language, and about what is "reasonably practicable". However, the Minister is my hon. Friend, and I shall take his words in the spirit in which they were meant. I hope that he will think about the amendment carefully and, if necessary, table an amendment of his own in the other place. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being half-past Four o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

PRESIDING OFFICER AND DEPUTY

Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 294, in page 26, line 39, leave out from 'members' to 'shall' in line 1 on page 27 and insert—
'the deputy presiding officer.
(1A) The Secretary of State shall be the presiding officer of the Assembly, but shall not otherwise be entitled to attend or to participate in or to vote in any proceedings of the Assembly.
(2) The offices specified in this section.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 295, in page 27, line 4, leave out 'be Assembly members who'.
No. 296, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
'(4) To be elected the presiding officer must secure an overall majority of the votes of Assembly members and, for each electoral region, no less than one third of the votes of Assembly members representing that region.'.
No. 309, in clause 75, page 37, leave out lines 28 to 33 and insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State for Wales shall be the presiding officer of the Assembly, but shall not otherwise be entitled to attend or to participate or to vote in any proceedings of the Assembly.'.
No. 308, in clause 75, page 37, leave out lines 28 to 33.

Mr. Evans: We hope to ascertain a more definite role for the Secretary of State for Wales, and also a sound basis for the position of the presiding officer. A growing band of people are still uncertain about what the Secretary of State's role will be after devolution becomes effective. He will lose a considerable amount of the power which, I assume, took up some of his working week, and the vacuum thus created has yet to be properly filled.
Working on the dictum that the devil makes work for idle hands, I hope that the Secretary of State will take the amendments in the constructive and inclusive sense in which they are meant. We are not trying to smoke out from him whether he intends to stand for the assembly in his own right—well, we are actually, but I suspect that we shall not get much further today than we have in the past. What we know is that the right hon. Gentleman is devolving a substantial amount of his job to the assembly. I suspect that it may be to himself that he is trying to pass those powers, with another hat on, but the move will leave whoever is Secretary of State in his place without the same role—some would say, with an inferior role—although he will still have important financial roles, which we shall debate tomorrow.
The amendment suggests giving the Secretary of State the role of presiding officer. He will thus be establishing a substantial authoritative role for himself, and a definite role within the new structure. He will have clout at Westminster and beyond, voicing the concerns of Wales. Whatever is decided, it is important to establish where authority lies on the various levels, and how best to ensure that Wales's voice is not muted or lost, but just inwardly directed by the devolution process.
The First Secretary will have elected authority, and will be seen as the person who speaks for Wales. A perception could quickly and easily arise that, as the Secretary of State for Wales was the Prime Minister's choice, his voice was that of the Cabinet and the Government. Indeed,

it would be peculiar and irregular if it were otherwise, although in the past no one has competed against the Secretary of State in the context of speaking for the people of Wales. There could be clashes between the First Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales, just as Secretaries of State will argue with leaders of local authorities even when those authorities are controlled by their own political parties.
Amendments Nos. 309 and 308 are contingent on the acceptance of amendments Nos. 294 and 295. Amendment No. 296 addresses the fears of the regions about the position of the presiding officer. People in the regions are concerned about the fair and proper working of the assembly. We seek to have their voice properly protected.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of a Speaker or a presiding officer of a democratically elected assembly who is not a member of that assembly?

Mr. Evans: I could give the example of the vice-president of the senate, but the Welsh assembly is a new body and we are seeking new methods. We are not constrained by the methods used in local government or Westminster. Let us see what we can offer.

Mr. Michael Ancram: The A1 Gore of Wales.

Mr. Evans: I am not sure whether that example would sell our proposition.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's continuing influence in Welsh affairs from his vantage point in Ribble Valley. Given that the two amendments are mutually exclusive, which one would he prefer?

Mr. Evans: We are trying to find out the views of the Government and the Secretary of State. It is proper for us to table amendments that, although mutually exclusive or contradictory, seek to draw out the Secretary of State. I hope that he recognises what we are trying to do. I may not have a preference: I am interested to know what the Government propose for the Secretary of State.

Mr. Davies: The Government may acknowledge the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument and be prepared to accept one of the amendments. I am merely wondering which one he would like us to accept.

Mr. Evans: There is always a first for everything. If the Secretary of State were to agree with any of my suggestions, it would be a parliamentary first and would go down in history. Both amendments are important. There could be a conflict between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary, and there could be a problem given that the Bill will create a vacuum in the Secretary of State's time. We hope that he will consider the amendments carefully, and accept some of our propositions. He may make his own proposals, or even declare an interest by telling us that he intends to stand for the Welsh assembly and wants to pass some of his present powers to himself in another guise.
Regional committees will be established: all we know to date is that there will be a committee of the north and other regional committees. We are seeking to have their voice protected by the constitutional safeguard of regional representation. The presiding officer would have to attract the majority support of the assembly, would have to have national appeal, and would have to win a third of the votes of Members of the Assembly representing each region. We believe that that device would allay the fears of the regions and the people who live in them.
After the referendum, the map of Wales was clearly divided between those who were and those who were not in favour of an assembly.

Mr. Ron Davies: indicated dissent.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I remember the night clearly: 11 areas voted yes and 11 voted no.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman uses the same old arguments at every debate.

Mr. Evans: If they are the same old valid arguments, it is important to keep stressing them. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with us about looking at ways to remove the fears of people in regions such as north Wales. They should be properly assured, and one way to do that is to give those who will represent the regions an extra say and protection for their views in the assembly. That is all that the amendment would achieve, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider accepting it. It would give to a third of the representatives of the regions democratic authority in the choice of one of the most important positions in the assembly. The amendments are constructive, and I look forward to hearing the Government's views on them.

Mr. Win Griffiths: It is good to see you, Mr. McWilliam, in the Chair because you are from one of the important regions of England.
Despite the earnestness of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—I almost said dribble valley—the amendments are ambivalent frivolities because they contain two different ideas—one about the role of the Secretary of State and the other about the procedure for an appointment. Clause 51 provides for the assembly to elect a presiding officer and a deputy presiding officer who shall be from different parties within the assembly.
Clause 75 entitles the Secretary of State to attend and participate but not to vote in plenary meetings of the assembly. It is clear from a study of any constitutional assembly in the world that the Secretary of State could not preside over the National Assembly for Wales because the two roles are inimical. For a start, the Secretary of State has onerous responsibilities and duties in the Cabinet and must attend its meetings

in London. That would take up a great deal of his time, so the idea of his presiding over an assembly in Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham or wherever is nonsense.

Mr. Evans: Following devolution, what will be the Secretary of State's role? Will he attract new and additional powers? According to the Bill, he will lose powers.

Mr. Griffiths: He will have several roles, one of which will be to represent Wales in government at Westminster and to attend the many committees which, as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will know, are held in Whitehall. He will also have to report to the assembly and take from that body to Westminster its views on Welsh matters. He will have a full job without the responsibilities of presiding over the assembly.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley advanced a completely different idea about how the presiding officer should be elected. It is plain that there is no agreement among Opposition Members about which amendment should have priority, and that means that they are not taking them seriously. The amendments are not necessary for the good working of the assembly and the one that requires specific votes from different parts of Wales would place an unnecessary constraint on it.

Mr. Evans: The Minister may see it that way, but perhaps we could examine amendment No. 296 and the election of the presiding officer. Is it not important to protect representatives of Welsh regions? The referendum showed that some people, particularly in north Wales, had some fears about the procedure. Our amendment would give them an opportunity to have a proper and equal say in the election of the presiding officer.

Mr. Griffiths: We have gone out of our way to try to get a better feel for views throughout Wales. We have introduced an unprecedented element of proportionality to the elections for the assembly. The hon. Gentleman and his party voted against that, but we are happy that that provision will help to take account of views throughout Wales. We do not need the prescription in the amendment and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr. Evans: We gave the Government an opportunity to start to measure up to the words of the Prime Minister on the steps of 10 Downing street when he said that he would listen to the fears of the people of Wales. Some people in north Wales and in other regions expressed fears about the assembly being Cardiff dominated.

Mr. Ron Davies: Swansea dominated.

Mr. Evans: It may be Swansea dominated. We do not know where the assembly will land. Today's issue of the Western Mail states that an airport site is being considered by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the assembly will have a smoother landing there than it has


had since its take off. Amendment No. 296 would have allowed the regions to be properly taken into account. It is a great shame that the Government have not taken up our suggestion, but I do not intend to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

ASSEMBLY FIRST SECRETARY

Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 10A, in page 27, line 6, leave out from 'be' to end of line 7 and insert,
'Prime Minister of Wales or Prif Weinidog'.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John McWilliam): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 91, in page 27, line 7, leave out
'Secretary or Prif Ysgrifennydd y Cynulliad'.
and insert
'Minister or Gweinidog Pennaf y Cynulliad'.
No. 200, in page 27, line 7, after 'Cynulliad', insert
'(a post whose title may be amended by provision of the Standing Orders)'.
No. 194, in clause 57, page 28, leave out lines 27 to 29.
No. 199, in page 28, line 31, after 'Cynulliad', insert
', or by such title as the Standing Orders may provide'.
No. 31, in clause 58, page 29, line 1, leave out 'a committee' and insert 'an Assembly Cabinet'.
No. 5, in page 29, line 1, after 'a', insert 'cabinet'.
No. 32, in page 29, line 2, leave out 'Secretary' and insert 'Minister'.
No. 33, in page 29, line 3, leave out 'Secretaries' and insert
'Ministers, who shall be appointed by the Assembly First Minister'.
No. 34, in page 29, line 3, leave out 'Secretaries' and insert
'Ministers, who shall be appointed by the Assembly First Secretary'.
No. 35, in page 29, leave out lines 4 to 6.
No. 21, in page 29, line 7, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 36, in page 29, line 7, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
No. 195, in page 29, line 7, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 22, in page 29, line 8, leave out first 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 37, in page 29, line 8, leave out first 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
No. 196, in page 29, line 8, leave out
'executive committee (to such extent as the executive committee'
and insert
'cabinet (to such extent as the cabinet'.
No. 23, in page 29, line 8, leave out second 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 38, in page 29, line 8, leave out second 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
No. 25, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 39, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
No. 197, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 40, in page 29, line 14, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
No. 28, in page 29, line 14, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 41, in page 29, line 15, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
No. 29, in page 29, line 15, leave out 'executive' and insert 'cabinet'.
No. 42, in page 29, line 17, at end insert—
'(4A) The Assembly Cabinet shall remain in office only so long as it retains the confidence of the Assembly and no longer.'.

Mr. Livsey: The first amendment is about the description of the head of government in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman before he gets into his swing. Two, totally different, ideas are dealt with in this group of amendments; one group is about what people will be called, the other is about a cabinet system as opposed to a committee system. If we felt it appropriate, could we have a vote on an amendment relating to the cabinet system?

The Temporary Chairman: That would have to be considered at the end of the debate, but of course it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman formally to propose an amendment. Standing Orders allow the group to be broken up in that way.

Mr. Livsey: As I was saying, the amendment refers to the possibility of there being a Prime Minister rather than a First Secretary. To give the Welsh assembly higher status, we may need to change the title, First Secretary.
If there is a First Secretary, he will on occasions have to speak to his opposite number in, for example, the Federal Republic of Germany, where each Land has its own Prime Minister, and we think that Prime Minister status would be appropriate. Such a situation would arise on many occasions. It would be nice to think that the leader of the assembly could discuss and even negotiate—perhaps with the motor regions—on an equal footing with leaders of other areas. We think that the title Prime Minister would be appropriate.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am intrigued. The hon. Gentleman said that the leaders of the Länder are Prime Ministers. I am sure his German is very good. What is the German title? There is no Prime Minister in Bonn as far as I am aware.

Mr. Livsey: I am not a German speaker. I speak French and halting Welsh, and my knowledge of German is not adequate to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question accurately. All I can say is that when Peter Walker was Secretary of State for Wales and met the Prime Minister


of Baden-Wurttemberg, he was described as such in the British press. If they got it wrong, they got it wrong, but that was the description. I remember that well.
The other amendments that we have tabled in this group, including amendment No. 5, refer to a cabinet system rather than a committee system, but unfortunately they were consequential on amendment No. 11A, which has not been selected. I hope you will not rule me out of order, Mr. McWilliam, if I briefly say that the head of each Committee would automatically become a member of the Cabinet. It would therefore be a hybrid system. All the amendments refer to a Cabinet in that context. It is somewhat disheartening to have to say that, although the amendments refer to there being a Cabinet, they do so in that specific context. We believe that the amendments that refer to a cabinet system remain linked with the current selection in the sense that they are probing what a cabinet system would be like in relation to the assembly.
As we know, there has been much discussion in Wales about the possibility of a cabinet system rather than a committee system.

Mr. Ancram: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman right? Did he say that many of his amendments are merely probing amendments? We had understood this to be a matter of some significance and importance to the Liberal Democrats. We take it seriously ourselves. In the light of what has been said previously by his party, I should be surprised if these were just probing amendments.

Mr. Livsey: I mentioned at the outset of my speech the context in which the references to a Cabinet are being made. No doubt during the debate the ranking of a cabinet system compared with a committee system will be debated at some length. Some hon. Members may wish to put this matter to a vote at the end of the debate. If that is so, it is so.
We Liberal Democrats have examined the possibility of a cabinet system compared with a committee system. Committees of the assembly will represent different subject areas, different regional areas—we hope—in Wales, and other aspects of government in Wales. That being so, our party feels that we need a decisive decision-making body, which could be of the Cabinet type, where decisions will be made directly as a result of good, honest, democratic debate in the Committees. We believe that that could produce a more rapid system of decision making and clearer accountability, which is an important issue in relation to how the assembly will function. We want it to function efficiently and effectively within a democratic framework.
There are attractions in a cabinet system. It would give the assembly more status. It would also mean that Ministers in the Cabinet were able to take on responsibilities. Indeed, the functions of the First Secretary or the Prime Minister would be devolved to them and they would become more accountable.
We would not wish to diminish too much the participation of Members of the Assembly in the committee system, where they would contribute significantly to the day-to-day running of the assembly and have input into the running of the Government in Wales, depending on the political configuration of the

assembly. We believe that it is right to table these amendments. We need a good, honest, debate on them to find out whether hon. Members can be persuaded that a cabinet system might have some distinct advantages over the committee system as proposed in the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I should like to apologise to him in case I might slightly have misled him. I suggested that amendments could be moved later; I must caution him that amendments now selected may fall if intervening clauses run against that line, so he may not get to that point.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. McWilliam.
It is on clause 58 that the substantive question of a cabinet or committee system arises, but unfortunately—I do not criticise the selection; we are not encouraged to do that—the selection of amendments does not allow debate on an amendment to clause 58 that deals with the cabinet system.
One of the most controversial aspects of the Bill in Wales is whether we shall be governed by a committee or cabinet system. It seems—if my interpretation is right—that we can have a debate on clause 52 on the name "Cabinet", but not on any of the substance of the clause in which related issues arise.

The Temporary Chairman: I want to be clear for the Official Report. That is exactly right.

Mr. Wigley: I therefore assume that you will be fairly tolerant, Mr. McWilliam, if hon. Members go beyond the purview of clause 52 because we are bound to get into the substance of a cabinet system.
Amendments Nos. 200 and 199 deal with the right to choose an appropriate title for the officials of the assembly; they deal with whether we should have Ministers or Secretaries. The assembly should be allowed the freedom to choose the title; it should not be prescribed in the Bill. The amendment would allow the assembly to choose, rather than have a decision imposed on it. Once the assembly is up and running, there is no reason why it should not have the power to change the nomenclature of its officers. In view of the spirit in which the Government introduced the Bill, I should have thought that they want to encourage that. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about why that freedom cannot be allowed.
5 pm
Amendment No. 194 would pave the way—as we then saw it—for the cabinet system, as would amendments Nos. 196, 197 and 195. Unfortunately, the amendment that deals with the guts of the cabinet system—the right to elect a cabinet—has not been selected. However, amendment No. 21, which has been tabled jointly by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, involves the concept of the cabinet, so I want now to discuss whether there should be a cabinet or a committee system in the assembly.
I and my colleagues feel strongly that there should be a cabinet system, for a number of reasons. We want to avoid some of the problems that arise in local government, where the committee system can sometimes be a vehicle for delay in decision making. Decisions have to go through a committee for ratification and are not valid until that committee has ratified them. We have all seen in our constituencies the frustration that is caused when people have to work through the cycle of local government committees before a decision can be ratified. That would be an unfortunate beginning for the assembly.
It is possible to secure answerability for the assembly's Ministers or Secretaries—whatever they are called—to a Committee without there being a committee system. Indeed, the development of Select Committees in this House has made Ministers accountable to a Committee that deals with the subject area—although the Minister does not have to go to that Committee to get approval for any decision that he makes. It is right that the assembly's Ministers or Secretaries should be held accountable to a scrutiny Committee and appear before that Committee, perhaps more regularly than is the case in Westminster. I am convinced that a cabinet system would provide a better mechanism for taking quicker decisions.
A cabinet system would also mean that when a Minister or Secretary of the assembly takes a decision, he has personal responsibility for it—it cannot be lost in the explanation that it was the Committee's decision to do this, or not to do that.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am interested in right hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he suggesting that if there were a cabinet system, the Cabinet would meet in secret whereas a Committee would meet in public? Is he advocating that?

Mr. Wigley: The Cabinet that the right hon. Gentleman's party has established to run the countries of these islands meets in secret. That is inevitably the case when plans are being developed.

Mr. Davies: Why?

Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman should ask the Prime Minister why the Cabinet meets in secret. I am sure that, when the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister in the last Labour regime, he would have defended the need for discussions on the Budget to be held in secret. That is the difference between national government and local government. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman views the assembly as a local government body—nothing more than an overgrown county council—I understand why he wants to have a local government system of committees. In such a case, the power of national government would not be available—

Mr. Davies: What about the Council of Ministers? Would the right hon. Gentleman defend the Council of Ministers' meeting in secret?

Mr. Wigley: The Council of Ministers does meet in secret. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has strong feelings about the way in which Europe works—or does not work—but there are times when it is necessary for the Council of Ministers to meet in secret. I would prefer greater openness and, indeed, a different system in the

European Parliament. I would like there to be a second chamber—a chamber of the regions and nations. That would provide a different structure of openness.
With regard to the government of countries—whether the government of the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Denmark or, for that matter, Scotland—it is right and proper that a Cabinet should take responsibility. A cabinet system would allow a more cohesive approach to government. A joint responsibility would go along with a cabinet system, but may or may not go along with the half-baked committee system that the right hon. Gentleman would like. A joint responsibility is something which adds to the ability of government to take coherent decisions and to act in support of them.

Mr. Rowlands: I thought that the whole notion behind many of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches over many months has been that there should be a new type of politics in Wales—a new style and openness in the assembly. Instead, he is describing the culture of secrecy, accountability and total collective responsibility of the Westminster model. I thought that we were supposed to pioneer some new style of politics.

Mr. Wigley: That will happen through the scrutiny that can be made available on a much better and more rigorous basis with a cabinet system. Individual members of the Cabinet will be responsible for the stance that they take. The hon. Gentleman appears to want the assembly to be a body more akin to local government than to central Government. That is the essential difference between his point of view and mine. I want powers to be transferred from Westminster to Wales. I want decisions to be taken on a national level in Wales; I do not want the centralisation of local government on an all-Wales level. That would be the danger of going down the road advocated by the hon. Gentleman.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has doubts about the model and about the assembly and that he wants a weaker model—

Mr. Rowlands: No.

Mr. Wigley: That may be the case—

Ms Julie Morgan: I am disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He appears to be denigrating local government. Is he aware that the most recent survey of public opinion on local government and its democratisation shows that it has scored a great deal higher than central Government, for the very reasons suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)?

Mr. Wigley: I hear the hon. Lady. In no way am I denigrating local government, which does very valuable work, but there are valid criticisms of it and the speed it takes to produce decisions. Surely the hon. Lady has heard criticisms about how long it sometimes takes to get decisions out of local authorities. I was aware of that when I served on a local authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and I have seen it in my constituency. I have seen the frustration that occurs because of the requirements of the system.
Local government serves an important function. There are people who give a lifetime's service to it and they do a dedicated job, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best system for transferring powers to Wales. I assume that the hon. Lady is not advocating that the assembly should be more akin to local government than to devolved central Government. That is the essential point. We are talking about the devolved power of central Government.

Mr. Ron Davies: I want to clarify a point that arose in the exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). My hon. Friend suggested that the White Paper and the Bill envisage that in no circumstances will any Committees of the assembly meet other than in public—

Mr. Rowlands: I did not.

Mr. Davies: I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledges that that is not the case. I draw the Committee's attention to clause 69(1)(b), which makes provision in the Standing Orders for Committees to meet in camera. I think that everyone accepts that there will be occasions when matters of commercial or personal confidentiality are considered and that Committees will require the opportunity to meet in camera. I think also that everyone has acknowledged that there will be occasions when the Executive Committee, for example—which will examine strategic matters such as finance and policy development—will want to meet in camera. That is why the Bill and, I should think, the Standing Orders provide for it to do so.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention. Such a provision is not to ensure built-in secrecy but coherent decision taking—to ensure that people feel that they can express aloud their ideas, determine whether those ideas are working and, if necessary, withdraw them, which is inevitable in any strategic body. A strategic approach to the issues requires that that happens not only at an all-Wales level but at an all-UK level.
There is broad consensus in Wales in support of a cabinet system rather than a committee system for the assembly. The support cuts across party-political boundaries. People in the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru realise the merits of a cabinet system. I remember that, after Lord Roberts—our old friend Sir Wyn Roberts—expressed an opinion on the matter, the Secretary of State said that there is essentially a continuum of possible models, running from a pure committee system to a pure cabinet system, and that the Welsh assembly will perhaps land on some point along that continuum.
I shall be glad if the Minister, in his reply, will tell us how Ministers currently think that that balance will be struck. Is there any reason, if the assembly deems that it is appropriate, why the point chosen in the spectrum should not be at or close to the cabinet end rather than the committee end? If the assembly can take the decision, that will be fair enough—because it will be allowed to develop

a cabinet system. If the Bill rules that out, however, amendments will have to be tabled either on Report or in the other place to ensure that the Bill allows the possibility of such a system.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I am curious about the wording of the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. As he himself has admitted that there are advantages and disadvantages with both systems, would it not have been more appropriate to table an amendment requesting that Ministers examine the advantages of both systems and the possibility of incorporating—perhaps later—the best of those systems, rather than doing what he is doing now: choosing one system that he admits has disadvantages?

Mr. Wigley: As the hon. Lady knows, our original amendment was not selected; technically, we are debating only a name. We are therefore debating an enormously important issue without having a substantive amendment to allow us to achieve our objective. If she were so minded, yes, it would be possible to table, on Report, an amendment to achieve that end.

Mr. Livsey: The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) mentioned providing the best of both systems, which was the objective of amendment No. 11A. That amendment was not selected, which is a pity. I know that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) also is being thwarted by not being able to debate the matter on that broader basis.

Mr. Wigley: I hope that amendments dealing with the substance of a cabinet system will be selected for the Bill's Report stage, unless by then Ministers have said either that they interpret the Bill in a manner that allows the assembly to develop a cabinet system or that they will table amendments in the other place or on Report to make such a system possible. It is immensely important to ensure that the assembly has a central and dynamic core to drive issues forward. A Cabinet would be answerable to the subject Committees and to the assembly itself.
We should remember that the assembly will be composed of only 60 persons. The Executive will therefore not be remote from its membership. An Executive would enable the assembly to take decisions quickly, coherently and strategically. A cabinet system would also provide necessary credibility in Europe and elsewhere.
The type of system that the assembly will use is a very important issue. I hope that other hon. Members will follow up on it, so that—regardless of which issues the House divides on today—we reach a conclusion on the desirability of a cabinet system and can hear from Ministers how they will satisfy the feeling that has been expressed by so many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Ancram: I was somewhat entertained by listening to the comments on Cabinet secrecy. Every Friday morning, hon. Members have the wonderful experience of reading riveting stories about who is saying what to whom in Cabinet, who is being rude to whom and who is looking out of the window. Sometimes the theory of Cabinet secrecy is perhaps honoured more in the thought than in the action.

Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is not trying to tell the House that he believes those stories, is he?

Mr. Ancram: As I read that they come from "an official Downing street source", I perhaps rather naively think that they have some authority and assume that I am supposed to believe them. However, I will not get into a discussion on Cabinet secrecy, other than to say that any of those bodies can be as open or as secret as they think is appropriate at the time.
I am in the rather surprising position of supporting amendment No. 10A, which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) says is a probing amendment. He did not say whether amendment No. 11 A, which he felt he could not speak to, is also a probing amendment. Regardless, our amendments have been tabled in all seriousness.
I tell the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that, in tabling our amendments, we did not draw a distinction between changing the name of the First Secretary and the theory of a cabinet system. We believe that the two essentially go together and are part and parcel of what we are trying to achieve. In amendment Nos. 91 to 41, we are effectively trying to change the name of the First Secretary to the First Minister, Secretaries to Ministers and the Committee to an Assembly Cabinet. I think that we are consistent in trying to do that. Amendment No. 42 is also in keeping with a cabinet structure, as we propose that a Cabinet should continue in existence only while it retains the assembly's confidence. That would be a right and proper part of the Cabinet's role.
We propose replacing the committee system with a cabinet system. That is not a new idea for Conservative Members, as we discussed it during the referendum campaign and have talked about it since. The reasons for the replacement are essentially those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.
Reading the Bill, it is not easy to determine how the Committee, as it is described, would operate within an assembly. The Bill seems to be confused—perhaps because the practical detail is always difficult to envisage—about whether it is designed to share power among all the assembly's participants or to concentrate it. Either objective would be possible.
Regardless of what happens to this group of amendments, the House will have to know a little more about how the Government think an Executive Committee will work in practice. A central question is where the power in the Committee will reside. Will it reside with the First Minister or with the Executive Committee? Will it reside with the individual Secretaries and with their Committees? Will it reside—as I sometimes fear is the case when there is confusion—with officials?
One of our concerns is that the current blurred position will make accountability—not only to politicians but to the public—a serious issue. The people in Wales will want to know who is responsible for what and—if necessary, as is the case in politics—who to blame if things go wrong. The experience of local government and the committee system tends to show that political accountability can become blurred. With a committee

system, it is easier to argue that responsibility is shared, that it is everyone's fault if something goes wrong and, if necessary, that it is to everyone's credit if things go right. My experience is that there tends to be a less than clear political focus, although I am in no way disparaging local government by saying that.
My understanding of the Bill is that we are not creating, or at least we should not be creating, local government. A committee structure is perhaps less in keeping with what we are attempting to do than is a cabinet structure, as there is to be in Scotland. Under that system, those holding responsibility are appointed by the First Minister or First Secretary, as our amendments seek to provide. That also creates the accountability in that the First Minister decides who his Ministers will be and they are responsible for their intromissions.
I am surprised that the Government seem to have set about creating what I can only describe as a constitutional mule—it is neither one thing nor the other, neither local government nor the type of cabinet structure to which we are accustomed.
My experience of committee structures is that they give undue influence to officials. Throughout local government, officials play an important role in putting forward recommendations and hold greater sway over elected members than is the case in a cabinet structure. If the assembly is a genuine exercise in democracy—I make this point having said all I have to say about devolution—and if we are trying to make it work effectively, what is proposed would undermine it.
The proposals for a committee system are a fundamental weakness in the Bill. Our amendments, and those tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would cure that weakness. I hope that the Government will consider them, as it is a matter about which we feel very strongly.

Ms Julie Morgan: As we consider the structure of the assembly, it is important to examine the principles behind it and incorporate them into that structure. The first principle of the assembly is that it should be as democratic as it can be. That means that people who hold positions in the assembly should be democratically elected. There should be as little patronage as possible. I know that patronage is endemic in all types of government, but it should be limited, so I do not agree with the amendment, tabled, I think, by the Conservatives, that states that the First Secretary should appoint the Secretaries to the Cabinet. That would not be acceptable. The Secretaries should be democratically elected, as that would be in tune with what we are trying to do in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Although we are not allowed to debate amendment No. 201, the hon. Lady might have noted that it would provide for the election rather than the selection of a Cabinet.

Ms Morgan: Yes, I had noted that.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady is making a case for electing members of the Cabinet. Would she like that to happen in Westminster, too?

Ms Morgan: We are not debating the system here, but patronage is too prevalent in all forms of government. We want a different style of government in Wales.
At Westminster, some people are in government, some are out, and the rest of us have to knock on the door and try to influence what is happening from outside. We do not want to reproduce that system in Wales.
As I was saying, the first principle on which we should structure the assembly is democracy. The second should be inclusiveness—we need to involve as many people as possible. That means that there should be a role for all Members elected to the assembly, including those who are not First Secretary or Secretaries. The importance of the National Assembly is that it should weld together the whole of Wales. We must ensure that everyone in the National Assembly has a role and feels that he or she has a part to play in planning the future of Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: A stakeholder assembly.

Ms Morgan: Indeed.
Another important principle on which to structure the assembly is the involvement of organisations from outside it. That can be done by some form of co-option, bringing in advisers and undertaking consultation. It will be done more easily and effectively via a committee system. A Committee should meet regularly and follow a programme of work; its members will develop expertise in the subject covered by it—although I hope that the Committees will cover a group of subjects rather than individual subjects.
In my intervention on the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I referred to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation survey carried out in 1995. It revealed that the public had very little regard for quangos. That did not surprise us because one of the reasons we are to have devolution in Wales is the corruption of the quango system. The survey also showed that the general public had a much higher regard for local authorities than for central Government. I think that that has something to do with the element of secrecy in central Government and the fact that the Government are seen as being more removed from the people.
I am concerned that the move towards a cabinet system in Wales has something to do with status and the feeling that in some way the overall British system is preferable. In setting up the National Assembly, we should be attempting to do something different. We should be creating something unique because we have a unique opportunity.

Mr. Dafis: There might be an element of status, which is important in itself, but when we are talking about Ministers and Cabinets, we are not talking only about the British system. I am not absolutely sure that they are the norm, but I imagine that they are common in regional governments throughout Europe. That is bound to be the case in Catalonia, the Basque country and the German Lander. There is no contradiction between that and having a committee system that in fact enables wide consultation and participation and a thorough critique of what the Cabinet and Ministers might be doing.

Ms Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. There is no doubt that there is a mixture of

systems in various regions and countries, but my point is that we need to come up with proposals that are dictated by what is good for Wales.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Lady agree that not everything about Westminster has been an abject failure and that one of the strongest cases for adopting a cabinet system is that it is one of the few aspects that has seemed to operate effectively in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole? Would not it be sensible to take this successful experience from Westminster and apply it to Wales?

Ms Morgan: We should look at other models to find out what is best for Wales. Systems develop in certain ways. For example, the cabinet system could develop into a presidential system. One could say that that happened under Margaret Thatcher. There are dangers in every system. I do not consider everything in Westminster to be an abject failure—there is good and bad. We want what is best for Wales.
It is clear, however, that we cannot discuss everything here. The advisory committee must work on the proposals, discuss them and produce advice for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that he will make that advice widely available for discussion and debate throughout Wales so that we can all participate in creating an assembly for everyone in Wales.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have been listening to the debate with increasing astonishment as I fear that the Committee has been debating a Bill other than the one before us. I thought that the purpose of considering a Bill in Committee was to investigate that Bill, rather than some abstract idea.
I should like to speak to amendment No. 31 and the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who alone alluded to the problem: what is being created here? The Bill refers to various Committees, and it would be otiose to mention them all. However, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said that it would be nice to do something different, creative and unique. The clauses under discussion achieve exactly that—to a far greater extent than she imagines.
Subsections (7) and (8) of clause 57 have a profound effect on whether the assembly has Committees or a Cabinet. Unless I am much mistaken, they allow for the Committees to delegate the functions that have been delegated to the assembly by the Secretary of State—or other Secretaries of State—to their Assembly Secretaries. They allow a strange bath-tub effect of delegation downwards by the Secretary of State to the assembly and then upwards again from the assembly to a Committee, and from the Committee to its Assembly Secretary.
The Assembly Secretaries, quite possibly endowed with plenary authority by their respective Committees, sit on the Executive Committee. Under other clauses of the Bill, the entire functions of the Executive Committee can be devolved upwards to the Assembly First Secretary. It is slightly unclear, to put it mildly, whether the Assembly Secretaries on the Executive Committee can devolve the entirety of their powers—which they may have gained


from the Committees—to the First Secretary. However, it is clear that they can devolve anything that lies within the remit of the Executive Committee.
What we have is by no means a committee structure reflecting that of local government. Any local government authority that acted in that way would immediately be taken to court and prevented from so doing. Nor do we have a Westminster system in which the Cabinet is accountable to the House and has to legislate through it. I admit that in present circumstances and with an equivalent majority, not much attention is paid to the niceties of Westminster, but, formally at least, the Bill is being debated in the House and in Committee, and the Government are accountable to the House. On the contrary, under the system outlined in this part of the Bill, the functions delegated to the assembly could be legislated on exclusively and in private—as the Standing Orders could determine—within the Executive Committee by Assembly Secretaries, each endowed with plenary authority, without the need to go back to their Committees or the Assembly.

Mr. Ron Davies: That is quite wrong.

Mr. Letwin: The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that that is quite wrong. It would be most helpful if he would elucidate on that.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman said that the Executive Committee would be able to legislate. The Executive Committee would have no legislative powers.

Mr. Letwin: If the Secretary of State had been attending closely, he would know that I was trying to say that the Assembly Secretaries could have been given plenary power by their Committees, so in the Executive Committee, each of them could legislate in their own domain as a sort of corporation sole legislature. To use the phrase of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, it would be a creative, unique and different arrangement.
In practice, if each Assembly Secretary had sole delegated power, they would discuss matters with one another. When they chose to act within whatever remit the Executive Committee had been given under the Standing Orders, they could also devolve their powers entirely to the First Secretary so that in those matters, the First Secretary could rule without reference even to the rest of the Executive Committee, let alone the other Committees or the assembly.

Ms Lawrence: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Assembly Secretaries are subject to a democratic process, as they have to be elected by their Committees? Plenary powers would have to be vested in them democratically by their Committees.

Mr. Letwin: I am delighted that the hon. Lady raised that point, as it brings me to my next and final point.
It appears that the Committees will be new and democratic in their constitution because they will be disposed in proportion to the constitution of the assembly, which, it is expected, will be proportional to the electorate. So we are meant to have a system resembling that of local government, but more so, in which proportionality is reflected through the ascending

hierarchy. Far from being the case, however, that is an illusion. The Committees will vote by simple, not qualified, majority. Therefore, it will be consistently the case that a single party—the Labour party—will be able, by simple majority vote, to give plenary power to each of the Assembly Secretaries, who no doubt will be from that party, thereby depriving all other members of the Committee of the slightest vestige of power. Those individuals will then be able to legislate for Wales.

Mr. Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is one reason why it is important to have an effective system of proportional representation? If the PR system works effectively, there will not be a monopoly of power invested in one party; instead, there will be a much wider distribution of power, so in those circumstances, his concern would fall.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There could be circumstances under which the result of proportional representation would create a coalition. If the powers that I have just described were used in those circumstances, there would be an almighty constitutional muddle as the person chosen to have the plenary power could not come from all the constituent parties of the assembly.
My point is not that it is a good or a bad system, but that it is an unholy muddle. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, it has the appearance of a committee structure, but, in reality, it is either a committee structure similar to that in local government, but more so, or, according to the Standing Orders of which we have no current knowledge, it is the most autocratic system of legislation yet invented for an assembly not only in European history, but—as far as I am aware—in world history. Providing for both those possibilities, with an ambiguity that only a legislative draftsman could achieve, and without the Secretary of State in the White Paper or elsewhere having remotely alluded to the possibility of different approaches, has resulted in an extraordinary muddle.

Ms Lawrence: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman believes in democracy. Regardless of the constitution of the Committee, in which there may be a majority of one party, is it not the basic principle of democracy that when a democratic vote is taken, the decision rests on the will of the majority? It would appear that the hon. Gentleman is arguing against the very principles of democracy.

Mr. Letwin: I had intended to finish, but I shall reply to that important point. There are two kinds of democracy. There is the democracy of the ballot box, which is fundamental. That has led to a Labour Government with a massive majority at the moment. I fully accept that, as I accept that similar majorities might occur in the Welsh assembly. That is no problem. However, there is another aspect of democracy, which I suspect that the hon. Lady thinks is as important as I do. Of necessity, such an election occurs only every so often. Between elections, there should be a system of accountability that ensures that when legislation comes forward, it is debated and discussed in open assembly by elected representatives, who may or may not be of the governing party.
I am describing a constitutional muddle that would permit control over legislation by a so-called assembly to be entirely concentrated in the hands of a few people with


plenary power to legislate in private on behalf of the assembly and this Parliament, without reference to anyone and without debate. I suspect that that would satisfy the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) no more than it satisfies me.

Mr. Rowlands: I support the system proposed in the Bill and the eloquent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: North.

Mr. Rowlands: I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). She demolished some of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
It is a pity that we are not on clauses 57 and 58. As in many of his speeches, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) built great constructions around one or two points, but when we look more closely at his points, we see that they are less substantial than they appear to be. The Assembly Secretaries who form the Executive Committee will be elected by each of the Assembly Committees. It falls within the power of the Assembly Committees to dispose of or alter votes of no confidence in the Assembly Secretary if he cannot carry the support of the subject Committee that elected him. The Assembly Secretaries will be accountable to the Committee that gave them their status.
If my interpretation is right, we are seeking a different model from that so touchingly proposed by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, which is almost identical to the Westminster model, with all its strengths and weaknesses. The Cabinet would not be elected. A Cabinet cannot be elected; it is chosen by the Prime Minister—which the right hon. Gentleman and others also want. Under the structure in the Bill, at least the Assembly Secretaries have to obtain the support of the subject Committees that they lead. That gives them the authority to be Assembly Secretaries.
Once there is a Prime Minister and other Ministers, there will be deputy Ministers. As a student of British government, I have watched the spawning of junior ministerial ranks. In the mid-1930s, I think that there were only 25 Ministers. Certainly before the first world war, there were no more than a couple of dozen Ministers. Since then, we have gained Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Such a system of deputy Ministers and deputy deputy Ministers might grow with a Cabinet structure. Lo and behold, we might even transpose from this place the concept of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. [Interruption.] I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) was groaning or expressing hopeful anticipation of a role that he might play.
I do not deny that I have had the pleasure of being a Minister through the patronage system, but, through the 1980s, I watched the growth of patronage in both major parties, including shadow patronage, which is as frightening because it is as binding and stifling as the real thing. That has lessened independence of thought and speech in the Chamber in the past 30 years. Transposing

such a system to a Welsh assembly would result in the gradual growth of patronage systems in the assembly, creating a dominant powerful Executive of the governing group. If we have a Prime Minister, we shall have a shadow Prime Minister. If we have a shadow Prime Minister, we shall have shadow Ministers. If we have deputy Ministers, we shall have shadow deputies. I do not want the patronage system, which I have seen grow in my parliamentary lifetime into a stifling influence, to be carried to the new and interesting politics that I hope will emerge from the Welsh assembly.
5.45 pm
What problem were we trying to address by creating an assembly? Surely the major problem was the concentration of power in one Department—the Welsh Office—and in the Secretary of State, who has a range of functions. Outside that system, we were trying to address the growth of the quango state. I thought that everyone campaigning for any form of devolution, however far down the road we wanted to go, wanted to bring a new spirit of openness to the decision-making processes. We wanted open debate and discussion, particularly on the allocation of resources.
The hon. Member for West Dorset talked about legislation. The assembly will not legislate—not in the manner of the Scottish Parliament. We are establishing the assembly to have an open debate on the allocation of the £6 billion or £7 billion of Government resources that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales and the host of quangos that spend some of it. That is its fundamental task. It must be done more openly than a Westminster Cabinet style of decision making would achieve. The centrepiece of the case for devolution was that we would bring a breath of fresh air to the decision-making processes for the allocation of such large resources.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend is speaking with his experience as a former Minister in the Welsh Office. If there is any merit in the arguments for moving towards a Cabinet style, it is that hundreds of decisions have to be taken every day. They are not the major strategic spending decisions that my hon. Friend is referring to, but the day-to-day decisions that are necessary to give effect to the broad strategic decisions taken collectively by the assembly.

Mr. Rowlands: Exactly. The notion that that cannot be done by open debate in Committees is nonsense. My right hon. Friend is right. We were seeking more openness in decision making at operational and strategic level on the allocation of spending and resourcing priorities. That is the primary function of the assembly.

Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he were trying to achieve his aim, he would have to recommend an amendment that deprived Committees of the ability to give their entire powers to Secretaries?

Mr. Rowlands: The great value and extremely important function of our Committee proceedings is to make us read the texts over and over again. I spend quite a lot of time reading them. I began re-reading clauses 57 and 58 as a result of the hon. Gentleman's interesting


observations. I understand why clause 57 gives powers to the Assembly Secretaries. The Assembly Secretaries, with the First Secretary, can make decisions independently. I think that that system exists in local government, where certain power is delegated to various smaller groups, such as chairmen of committees, at various times in the year.
The hon. Member for West Dorset is wrong to imply that the Assembly Secretaries described in clause 58 would be unaccountable and—I think that he used the word—autocratic, because they derive their power entirely from their election by the subject Committees, as is laid down in clause 57. That is not an autocratic system; it is directly accountable. If one of the subject Committee Secretaries cannot carry his Committee, he will be out on his ear—not by the decision of a Prime Minister in some reshuffle, but by the power of the subject Committees and other Committees. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is a different model. The clauses do not construct a local government system. They construct a different decision-making process which is suited to the assembly's central task: to bring greater democratic pressure to bear on decision making and the allocation of resources.
The difference between a cabinet structure and even a local government structure lies in who controls the information that is given to the elected members. In a cabinet structure, as I know from experience, the information given out is controlled—even at departmental and ministerial levels. Certain options in the debate—in the Whitehall system and among Ministers—are eliminated. What is released to the House of Commons is basically the preferred option. Sometimes, slight variations are offered in Green Papers, but, generally, the process is one of filtering information for final scrutiny. The system that we are suggesting is different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North suggested, it allows greater openness. It allows officials, to whom the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred, to deliver more information to the assembly than could possibly be provided in a cabinet structure.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's theory about openness of government and giving control to Members of the Assembly is sound. Surely he should have begun that battle with his party ages ago. What about the closed list system, which concentrates power on political parties and not on individual candidates?

Mr. Rowlands: I have made my views on the closed list system very clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends. On this occasion, I whole-heartedly support the clauses before us.

Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been a very important debate. It was instigated by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and has produced a wide variety of views. Most importantly, for the first time in these debates, the official Opposition have made enlightened and constructive comments on the way in which the assembly should be run.
The purpose of the amendments is to establish a cabinet model of internal organisation for the assembly. The Cabinet would consist of a Prime Minister of Wales—an Assembly First Minister—and, perhaps, Assembly Ministers, who would be appointed by the First Minister.

That Cabinet would be collectively responsible to the assembly and would hold office only while retaining the assembly's confidence.
I have listened very closely to both sides of the argument. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made much of the difference between a cabinet model and a committee model, especially the local government committee model. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made great play of what they felt were more open and inclusive forms of decision making in local government.
In both cases, the strengths and weaknesses of the system are dependent on the people who are in charge. I recall some local government systems that included a full panoply of committees, but which were as closed and as secret as any cabinet committee structure. We must consider all systems in the context of who will be in charge. The Bill would allow, more or less, for either extreme to be accommodated. A cabinet model, more or less, could be accommodated, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) tried to point out in a rather theoretical way. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, a pure committee system could be accommodated. We believe that there can be points along the spectrum, and that the assembly can make its own decisions about how it might like to operate. The assembly will be a democratically accountable body and be able to decide such matters for itself.
We do not want to prescribe the exact internal architecture of the assembly. The issue of how the Standing Orders might lead to the operation of the assembly has been given to the advisory group, which will pass on its thinking to the Commissioners.

Mr. Ancram: I am listening very closely to the Minister, and I thank him for the attention that he paid to our proposals. Does not he accept that the detail of the proposed committee structure is prescriptive? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, the Bill is indistinct and confused in what it is trying to achieve. It would be for the benefit of the people in Wales, and indeed the system, if the Minister were to say now that he would accept one of the amendments as a token of his good faith in the imposition of a cabinet structure. I suggest that if he finds it difficult to accept the amendments relating to the Cabinet, he should consider amendments relating to the name of the First Minister or the First Secretary. If he could accept one of them, I would be satisfied. Obviously, if he could not do that, we should have to take our own view of what he meant by the refusal.

Mr. Griffiths: The clauses allow for what the hon. Member for West Dorset thought was confusion, but what can be seen as flexibility in the way in which the assembly will operate.
The Commissioners will obviously undertake their work having regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's guidance—although they will also be informed by this debate. We believe that the advisory group and the Commissioners will continue to consult widely in Wales on any specific proposals on how the assembly might operate—whether it is much more of a local government system or one that moves towards a cabinet system.


We believe that this debate has been very helpful in providing a view for the advisory group and the Commissioners to consider. We still see a need for consideration and flexibility in how these matters are to be handled; nothing is settled yet. The advisory group will be able to consider these things. I hope that, in that context, the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr. Livsey: I hear what the Minister says, and I believe that he is correct in saying that we have had a good debate. I do not have time to go into all aspects of it, but obviously there are differences of opinion about whether there should be a complete cabinet or a complete committee system. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 292.

Division No. 145]
[5.59pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
Garnier, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blunt, Crispin
Gray, James


Boswell, Tim
Green, Damian


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Greenway, John


Brady, Graham
Grieve, Dominic


Brand, Dr Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hammond, Philip


Breed, Colin
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hayes, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burnett, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Burstow, Paul
Horam, John


Butterfill, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cable, Dr Vincent
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cash, William
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hunter, Andrew



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clappison, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Collins, Tim
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Colvin, Michael
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cotter, Brian
Lansley, Andrew


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward


Curry, Rt Hon David
Letwin, Oliver


Dafis, Cynog
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lidington, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan, Alan
Livsey, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Llwyd, Elfyn


Evans, Nigel
Loughton, Tim


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fearn, Ronnie
MacKay, Andrew





McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stunell, Andrew


Maples, John
Swayne, Desmond


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Syms, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Öpik, Lembit
Townend, John


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Tyler, Paul


Paterson, Owen
Tyrie, Andrew


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Prior, David
Walter, Robert


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles


Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ruffley, David
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wilkinson, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Willetts, David


Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodward, Shaun


Shepherd, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Sir David Madel.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Alexander, Douglas
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Ms Jean


Blears, Ms Hazel
Crausby, David


Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradshaw, Ben
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Darvill, Keith


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Browne, Desmond
Davidson, Ian


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Byers, Stephen
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Denham, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dismore, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Dobbin, Jim


Caplin, Ivor
Donohoe, Brian H


Casale, Roger
Doran, Frank


Caton, Martin
Dowd, Jim


Cawsey, Ian
Drew, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Drown, Ms Julia






Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lepper, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Leslie, Christopher


Edwards, Huw
Levitt, Tom


Efford, Clive
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Livingstone, Ken


Ennis, Jeff
Lock, David


Etherington, Bill
Love, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCabe, Steve


Flint, Caroline
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Follett, Barbara
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galloway, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gapes, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Goggins, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Grogan, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Milburn, Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Home Robertson, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hurst, Alan
Norris, Dan


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Rona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg



Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Prosser, Gwyn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rammell, Bill


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooker, Jeff


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rooney, Terry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rowlands, Ted





Roy, Frank
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ryan, Ms Joan



Salter, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Savidge, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Sawford, Phil
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Shaw, Jonathan
Tipping, Paddy


Sheerman, Barry
Todd, Mark


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
White, Brian


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wills, Michael


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wise, Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Janet Anderson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I beg to move amendment No.272,in page 27,line 7,at end insert
'and the Assembly First Secretary Shall be treated as being an office of ministerial level for the purposes of Article 203 of The Treaty of Amsterdam'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 273, in clause 57, page 28, line 31, at end insert
'and the Assembly Secretaries shall be treated as being offices of ministerial level for the purposes of Article 203 of the Treaty of Amsterdam'.

Amendment No. 440, in clause 105, page 51, line 43, at end insert—
'(2) The Assembly may scrutinise proposed legislation being considered by European Community institutions, to the extent that this is necessary in order to enable the Assembly to—

(a) clarify and assess the extent of the obligations which it would incur under subsection (1) in the event of the proposed legislation being enacted, and
(b) express a view to European Community institutions regarding these obligations.

(3) Members of the executive committee may discuss the matters referred to in subsection (2) with the members and staff of the European Commission.'.

New clause 5—Delegations to Europe—
'(1) When matters over which the Assembly has some powers are being discussed with bodies of the European Union, the appropriate Assembly Secretaries shall be entitled to accompany United Kingdom Government Ministers and to participate in such discussions on behalf of the Assembly.
(2) Where the matters to be discussed under subsection (1) are matters that only affect Wales and do not affect other parts of the United Kingdom, Assembly Secretaries shall not be accompanied by the appropriate United Kingdom Government Ministers.'.

New clause 9—Representations in relation to European Union—
'(1) The representations referred to in section 34 may be made by means including the following—

(a) the selection and sending of a non-voting representative from the Assembly to meetings of the Council of Ministers of the European Union,
(b) the selection and sending of representatives from the Assembly to the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union,
(c) the selection and sending of representatives from the Assembly to the Committee of the Regions of the European Union,
(d) scrutiny by the Assembly of proposals for legislation deriving from the institutions of the European Union, and the publication of any conclusions reached as a result of this scrutiny, and
(e) the appointment of staff members to the United Kingdom representative office to the European Union.

(2) The Assembly may decide that the representatives appointed under (c) of subsection (1) shall be the whole of the representation from Wales on the Committee of the Regions.
(3) Where the Assembly exercises its power under (d) of subsection (1), the House of Commons shall, after consultation with the Assembly First Secretary, make such arrangements as it deems appropriate for the consideration of the representations made by the Assembly.'.

New clause 16—Representative office for Wales in Brussels—
'.—(1) A representative office for the Assembly shall be established in Brussels
(2) The office shall have the functions of providing advice to, and consultation with, the institutions of the European Union on matters affecting Wales.'.

New clause 20—Council of Ministers' meetings—
'(1) Before any Minister of the Crown attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which consideration is to be given to any issue relating to devolved matters, the Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly and seek its views on the issue.
(2) When a Minister of the Crown attends such a meeting of the Council of Ministers, he may permit a member of the executive committee of the Assembly to attend with and participate in the United Kingdom delegation.
(3) Following a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which any issue related to a devolved matter has been discussed, the Secretary of State shall forthwith report on what transpired at said meeting to the Assembly and answer any questions that the members of the Assembly may have.'.

Mr. Jones: The Minister will recall the interesting discussion that we had on Second Reading. He responded to points that I had raised about the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales, and Europe and the European Union institutions. The purpose of amendments Nos. 272, 273 and 440 and new clause 9 is to flesh out and test the assurances that he gave towards the end of his speech on that occasion. I welcome the spirit of his remarks at the end of the second day of the Second Reading debate. We are moving in the same direction. However, there are matters that we want to have written into the Bill, although he will recognise that some of the amendments are probing amendments.
Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 would allow the First Secretary or the Secretaries of the subject Committees to attend the Council of Ministers and to deliver the United Kingdom vote on certain matters. It is generally accepted on both sides of the Committee that there will not be many occasions on which the representatives of the assembly will be in a position to deliver that vote, but it is important for us to make it clear that they are authorised to do so when the occasion arises. The Minister said that there would be occasions, such as debates on minority languages, when it would be appropriate for Secretaries to attend the Council of Ministers and deliver the UK vote. We all accept that that would be on the basis of agreement with the UK, but it should be specifically authorised.
As a former Member of the European Parliament, the Minister will know that the Maastricht treaty set out the circumstances that would allow representatives of regional Governments to deliver the vote on behalf of the member state. That treaty obligation is repeated under article 203 of the treaty of Amsterdam, in identical words to those in the previous treaty. We want it to be written into the Bill that the Secretaries, as officers for the purposes of the Council of Ministers, are authorised to deliver the vote.
There is a good reason for that. Although the Minister acknowledged that that would be appropriate in certain circumstances, the assurance would depend on the good will of the Government of the day. I have no hesitation in accepting the good will of the current Minister, the current Secretary of State or any of the current ministerial team in the Welsh Office. However, I would be worried if there were a Government of a different political complexion, or a Government who did not have the same view of those matters.
Although we acknowledge the commitment that the Minister gave on Second Reading, will he now take it one stage further and write it into the Bill, so that any future Government would not be able to say that the Secretary was attending the Council of Ministers through the good will of the UK Government? The Secretary's attendance must be authorised under the Government of Wales Act, as we hope the Bill will shortly become.
As for amendment No. 440, the Minister will know that under the Bill the assembly is obliged to implement any directives that emerge from the European Council of Ministers and subsequently become EU law. However, I cannot find any obligation on the EU institutions to ensure proper scrutiny by the assembly of such draft directives; or to allow the assembly to pass on any comments or observations while the documents are still being considered in draft form. In other words, what mechanism is there to allow the views of the assembly to be heard before the Council of Ministers votes on draft directives?
It is crucial that the views of the assembly on a number of key areas be put to European Union institutions. Agriculture is one such area. The Minister knows of farmers' concern about the current crisis; and about the importance of any reform of the common agricultural policy to rural areas of the type many of us represent, because of the effects that it will have on support for agriculture. It is vital that the assembly's views on any reform proposals under Agenda 2000 be taken into account by the European institutions. For that, we need clear structures and lines of communication.
Another such issue is the environment; indeed, agriculture and the environment often go together. The proposal is to move away from direct support for agriculture—aids to production—and towards agrienvironmental payments. Here again, the assembly will need to scrutinise any key decisions that are made.
Although transport is very important to Wales, I acknowledge that the assembly will have no responsibility for railways; but the Minister will know of the forthcoming strategic routes decisions to be taken in the EU, affecting, for instance, the north Wales coast railway line and the south Wales main line. How are they to be fitted into the European integrated transport structure? Are they to be regarded as key trans-European networks, or are they to be relegated to second-class status?
Tourism is the fourth key area of scrutiny for the assembly in the context of European Union directives. We want the assembly to have the authority both to scrutinise the directives and to put its views to the relevant EU institutions.
New clause 9 is a little more comprehensive than the amendments. Clause 34 provides that
the Assembly may consider and make representations about any matter affecting Wales.
New clause 9 is an attempt to find out what that really means in the context of our relations with the European Union. First, the First Secretary or other Secretaries should be part of delegations to the Council of Ministers by agreement with the UK Government of the day, either in a formal capacity or with observer status on some occasions. It is important also that representatives of the assembly be on those delegations, because many important decisions are taken well before votes are delivered or prepared statements made before the Council of Ministers. It is in the crucial negotiations leading up to decisions that assembly representatives need to be present.
The second issue dealt with by the new clause concerns the selecting of representatives to ECOSOC, the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union. Who will decide who the representatives from Wales should be? I can find nothing in the Bill referring to ECOSOC, although there is a reference to the Committee of the Regions—another matter on which the Government need to explain their thinking. Schedule 8 amends previous legislation, stipulating that representatives on the Committee of the Regions can come from local authorities or the assembly.
The Secretary of State will recall our debates on these matters, following which it was decided that representatives from Wales should be selected by local government representatives. He will further recall the problem to do with the authority of the representatives from some member states who had been selected by local government vis-à-vis the authority of others selected by regional government. The tendency was to have two classes of representative: regional government representatives being regarded as first-class members and local government representatives as second-class members. We may or may not wish to pursue that today; suffice it to say that it was the inevitable consequence of decisions taken in the past.
Now we want to know the Government's intentions. Theoretically, under the Bill, there could be two representatives on the Committee of the Regions selected by local government, or two from the assembly, or one

from each. Our view has always been—I hope that I carry my colleagues with me—that they should be selected by the assembly. Our reasons for saying so have always been clear—representatives to the Committee of the Regions should represent the whole of Wales. Local government representatives tend to give a voice to the areas that they represent. That is why our preference is for assembly representatives to serve on the Committee of the Regions.
I have already discussed scrutiny on amendment No. 440, so I shall not dwell on it.
Lastly, I want to touch on the issue of representation on United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels. On Second Reading, the Minister said that it would be possible for staff serving the assembly to be representatives, on occasion, on UKREP. That is an important issue. As the Minister knows from his experience of delegations to the Council of Ministers, much of the work is carried out well before matters are put to Ministers. Many of the ground rules are agreed during the drafting of directives by the Commission. The Commission's directive on the reform of structural funds, for example, is currently exercising many minds in Wales.
It is important that the views of the national assembly are made clear to the Commission through UKREP while directives are being drafted, rather than when decisions are being taken by the Council of Ministers. Those matters were canvassed in general terms on Second Reading. We now want more flesh on the bones. We await the Minister's response with interest.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I was not going to speak until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones). In so far as we debated the matter during the referendum campaign, neither the representatives of some of the farming unions nor Plaid Cymru thought that there was a problem. People who raised the issue were said to be trying to spoil things. Since then, we have discovered that there is a problem.
When the hon. Member for Ynys Mon said that he wanted the Welsh assembly to be part of UKREP—the United Kingdom permanent representation—he laid bare the illogicality of his argument.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to read the Hansard report of the debate on Second Reading? The Minister said:
Assembly staff will be able to be part of UKREP". —[Official Report, 9 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 892.]

Mr. Davies: If that is a fact, I do not see why it needs to be specified in the Bill. There is a real problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There was the perfectly understandable desire—many of us have been round this course during the past 20 years—to decentralise government in Wales and devolve power from the Welsh Office. That was the basis of the whole argument for devolution. The hon. Gentleman, it seems, is no longer happy with that, and wants to turn the assembly into a Government Department.
Usually, the United Kingdom is represented on the Council of Ministers by Ministers with Departments. The hon. Gentleman is worried that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State for Wales will no longer have a Department, which will create problems when Ministers


negotiate in the Council of Ministers and other European institutions. I understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. He wants to fill the void by sending Members of the Assembly to sit on the Council of Ministers.
That is cloud cuckoo land, as is so often the case in the arguments of such people as the hon. Gentleman who want to move further and further down the road of devolution. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would create problems. For example, will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry represent the whole of the United Kingdom or just England, given that her departmental responsibilities will be for England and not for Wales? Similar problems will arise in relation to agriculture, and those problems are created by devolution itself. I do not see how they can be solved, but perhaps the Minister can tell us.
Devolution brings benefits and liabilities. One of the minuses is that we shall lose a Government Department headed by the Secretary of State for Wales. The advantage of that is that we can democratically debate the allocation of resources in the assembly, although Plaid Cymru does not want a democratic debate—it wants a Cabinet to determine the allocation of resources in secret, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said.
A nation state's representation in the European Union is based on the Council of Ministers and, within the Council of Ministers, on Ministers who have Departments. The fact that Wales will have a Secretary of State without a Department will cause considerable problems. The amendment would make very little difference to the situation, which is a minus that Wales will have to accept.

Mr. Ancram: I broadly agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). As he said, this is not a new problem. When a number of us raised it during the referendum campaign, we were accused of scaremongering—that was the word I heard most often.
I am reminded that, in the foreword to the White Paper, the Secretary of State said:
An elected Assembly will give Wales a voice—in Britain and in Europe—after years of neglect.
He said not that he, as Secretary of State, would give Wales a voice in Europe after years of neglect—that is a strange phrase to use in a non-political document, but I shall let that pass—but that the elected assembly would. We were entitled, therefore, to see whether the Bill would establish a new way in which to create that stronger voice.
Paragraph 3.46 of the White Paper states:
Wales needs a strong voice in Europe.
It says that the Secretary of State will continue to represent Wales in the Council of Ministers. As I said when we debated the White Paper, there is nothing new in that. The only new factor in the White Paper is that there will be arrangements to allow close liaison and consultation with the assembly.
When we look for details of that in the Bill, however, we find that it is silent. The Secretary of State may be able to be the voice of Wales in the Council of Ministers, but, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli said, his voice will be weaker, as he will not have a Department behind him. Moreover, there are no arrangements to formalise how officials will advise him.
Those who have held ministerial office in Wales and Scotland recognise that an enormous amount of preparation work is done by officials. They prepare for the deliberations of Ministers in the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European policy or work in the Commission on papers for the Council of Ministers. They can do that because, whether they are from the Welsh Office or the Scottish Office, they are officials of the United Kingdom Government. Yet nearly all those officials in Wales will be transferred to the assembly. How will they be brought back into that system of consultation? To whom will they owe their loyalty: to the assembly, which will be their master, or to the United Kingdom Government, on whose behalf they will appear to act?

Mr. Rowlands: I am closely following the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He mentions a point on which we have not been able to engineer a debate in Committee—the concept of the concordat. I assume that the answer to some of his questions will be covered by the concordat, but we have not heard about it yet.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As I was about to say, all the Government tell us is, "Don't worry; it will all be in a concordat." That, at least, is what we are told in relation to Scotland; I am not sure that we have been told it in relation to Wales.
I know what a concordat means between Governments, but I do not know what it will mean in the framework of devolution. If it means an agreement between friends, it will not be worth the paper on which it is written when the friendships cease.
How complicated will the concordat be? Will it deal with the problems of loyalty and allegiance among civil servants if they are used in that way? We are dealing with a highly complex matter that has not been thought through properly. The White Paper was pretty weak, but the Bill is totally silent. Even if there is a concordat, what will happen not if there is a political difference between London and Cardiff—as the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) suggested—but if there is a conflict of interest?
We know that there may be a conflict of interest in the Scottish context between Scottish and Cornish fishermen, for example. Whose view would the United Kingdom representative advocate in that situation? If the interests of Welsh hill farmers conflicted with those of farmers elsewhere in the United Kingdom on the important topic of agriculture, where would the loyalty of the Secretary of State or the Minister who goes to the Council of Ministers lie? What concordat will bind him to neglect, if necessary, the interests of his area in order to represent the interests of another area where he has not been elected and has no democratic representative interest? The White Paper was pretty silent about those problems, but the Bill is completely silent.
That is a major flaw in the legislation, which we warned the Government about during the referendum campaign and which has still not been addressed. It could lead to enormous resentment in the future, when the people of Wales find that, far from achieving the stronger voice that they were promised, their voice is much weaker.
At present, the Secretary of State can attend meetings of the Council of Ministers. He can participate in deliberations, vote and, if necessary, lead—I think that a Welsh Minister led on one occasion. If those responsibilities are transferred to the assembly, what will happen if there is a conflict of interest?

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: How many times did the Secretary of State for Wales deliver the United Kingdom votes during 18 years of Conservative government?

Mr. Ancram: According to the only figures that I have, that has occurred once since 1992. I do not have a complete answer, but the important point is that the Secretary of State had the right to do so. That right will be severely diminished—if it can be exercised at all—in the future. Not one element of that right will be transferred to the assembly.
I find amendments Nos. 272 and 273, in the name of Plaid Cymru, highly unacceptable and difficult to understand in terms of the rules of Europe. Amendment No. 272 states:
the Assembly First Secretary shall be treated as being an office of ministerial level for the purposes of Article 203 of The Treaty of Amsterdam".
In terms of the treaty, it means that the First Minister could not only represent the United Kingdom but commit the United Kingdom within the European Union. Article 203 of the treaty of Amsterdam says:
The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State".
I shall refer to the difficulties involved with that in a moment.
The Liberal Democrat new clauses seek mandatory participation by saying that a member of the Welsh assembly "shall" participate. The new clauses go further and say that there should be United Kingdom representation of Welsh interests by a Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. Those issues raise enormous constitutional questions. The one point that is common to the proposed new clauses is that the Minister or the Secretary—whatever he will be called—who goes from the Welsh assembly to the Council of Ministers will also represent the United Kingdom.
However, such people will not have a mandate from the United Kingdom; they will not be elected by the United Kingdom electorate. They will be elected according to the electoral mandate of the people of Wales. They cannot answer to the United Kingdom Parliament and they cannot be held to account by that Parliament. It would be constitutional nonsense to allow such a provision to prevail.
For that reason, new clause 20 suggests the only possible means of squaring the circle: first, we should write into the Bill the obligation of the Secretary of State to consult the assembly before a matter of interest to Wales is considered by the Council of Ministers. Secondly—although it is the third part of the proposed new clause—on returning from a meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Secretary of State would be obliged to report to the assembly. That would ensure that the weak elements in the White Paper were at least present in statute, and could not be left to the whim or the invitation of a Government at Westminster.
The third part of new clause 20 suggests that a member of the Executive Committee of the assembly may participate in a United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers on the basis that he is asked to do so in appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Denzil Davies: A problem remains even if that provision is written into the Bill. The Secretary of State for Wales will be a Minister without portfolio. I do not know whether there are any precedents that allow Ministers without portfolios to sit in meetings of the Council of Ministers with other Ministers who have portfolios.

Mr. Ancram: That is a very good question, but I shall not seek to answer it now. I do not claim that new clause 20 will solve the problem—I would not have started from this position in the first place. However, given that we are in this situation and that the Bill has created a large democratic deficit in relation to Wales and Europe, I believe that the Government should consider new clause 20 carefully.

Mr. Livsey: I realise that time is limited, and I have made short contributions to the Committee tonight. This is another extremely important matter. The Liberal Democrat new clause 5 gives the assembly the power to send a delegation to Europe. New clause 16 enables the assembly to set up an office for Wales in Brussels.
We believe that there is a lack of statutory provision concerning the relationship between Wales and its assembly and the various institutions of the European Union. That has occurred despite the specific references that appeared in the White Paper and the Government's promise that the Bill would provide for Members of the Assembly to represent Wales on the Committee of the Regions. Apart from a provision in clause 30 enabling the power to designate a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department as being responsible for implementing European Community law, so that it is possible to designate the assembly for that purpose, and clauses 105 to 107 requiring the assembly to observe European Community law, the Bill is totally silent on the European dimension.
I would raise many other issues if I had more time. However, I draw the Committee's attention to a statement made by the Secretary of State at a crucial point during the referendum debate. In a press release of 11 September 1997, the Secretary of State said:
The Assembly will be able to take part in relevant negotiations on policy at all levels, up to and including the Council of Ministers. There will be scope for executive members of the Assembly to speak on behalf of the UK in those negotiations".
We believe that it is essential to establish within the assembly a European Community Committee that will be responsible for the assembly's relations with the EU. The assembly should have the right to send observers to working group meetings to discuss matters devolved to Wales and the right to participate fully in preparatory meetings of the United Kingdom delegations to the EU. The assembly or its European Committee should have the right to scrutinise EC legislation before it is adopted. A Committee representing Whitehall and the assembly should be established in order to co-ordinate European


policy in areas transferred to Wales. The assembly should also have the right to receive full reports from UKREP about EU meetings. Finally, we believe that there should be a written agreement or concordat that will establish the detail of the practical arrangements in order to ensure the effective working of the measures that I have outlined.
None of those provisions are in the Bill, and we seek the Minister's response in that regard.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to have had a discussion about Europe—albeit a rather short one. It was a bit like old times, as the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said. 1 think that he was recalling the famous night when Plaid Cymru did a deal with the then Conservative Government and the former Secretary of State, David Hunt. It has been a little like old times in the past week, with Labour thinking about renationalising the railways and the Foreign Secretary doing a Henry VIII and getting rid of Anne Boleyn.
We must consider whether it is practical for the assembly to represent what I believe must be the United Kingdom Government stance at meetings of the Council of Ministers. Clearly, the circumstances would have to be exceptional, and Parliament would have to agree to the meeting taking place.
Some issues could arise when the Westminster Parliament would be happy for its interests in the Council of Ministers to be represented by the Welsh assembly. One example is minority languages. Wales is generally regarded as having done far more for the Welsh language than the French Government have done on behalf of the Breton language over the past 50 years for various historic reasons.
A tragic example would be restitution of the land damaged by the Chernobyl nuclear power station accident 12 or 13 years ago. If Wales were the only part of the United Kingdom that still had land where lamb produced on it could not be eaten because caesium was still coming up through the new grass in the spring—I believe that that is the position—it would be logical for the Welsh assembly to send a representative to the Agriculture Committee or the Environment Committee of the Council of Ministers. That would clearly be sensible if it were a transferred function.
There would have to be wholly exceptional circumstances and the transferred function would have to be by agreement with the Westminster Parliament. It would surely be curmudgeonly if we were to say that never should the Welsh assembly, or the Scottish Parliament for that matter, represent, even by agreement, the United Kingdom position at a meeting of the Council of Ministers. It would be appropriate that it should do so if a particular issue affected only Wales within the United Kingdom or where Wales was generally recognised as being in the lead and having the greatest expertise and investment in a certain interest.
For the reasons that 1 have outlined, it is important that we establish that the Welsh assembly—although it must not give itself inappropriate airs and graces—can have an external arm. In the same way, the Welsh Office chose to make grants for Welsh-medium education in Patagonia,

and to be a participant in the Europe of the four motor regions. In the person of Sir Wyn Roberts, it chose to talk to the Governments of Lombardy, Catalonia and so on. There was nothing wrong with that. Those activities did not attract criticism when the Welsh Office was part of the United Kingdom Parliament. It seems to me that there would be nothing wrong in those inherited rights, obligations and freedoms applying also to the Welsh assembly. The council of the isles may take that process in the direction of Ireland. There would be nothing wrong in that.
Undoubtedly, there will be exterior interests to involve the Welsh assembly, and that will be appropriate if the assembly abides by the principle of not giving itself airs and graces.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The amendments focus on the role of the assembly in discussions on European Union matters in the United Kingdom and within European institutions.
I shall quickly get out of the new clause 16, which turns on the issue of representation in Brussels. That is something which the assembly will have to decide, as it will have to decide what resources it wants to put into it and how much it wants to do in Brussels. There is no need to have anything of that sort set out in the Bill. 1 should imagine that the assembly would want such representation.
As the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said, new clause 9 is dealt with in schedule 8. That schedule has been constructed to provide the assembly with flexibility when it comes to whether there should be two local government members, two Members of the national assembly or one member from each. We want the assembly to be able to make that decision. The assembly should not have any difficulties with that.
Should we delineate in the Bill the role that the assembly will play in discussions with the European Union within the United Kingdom and within European institutions? We believe that that can best be dealt with through the development of concordats with Government Departments at Whitehall. Clause 106, for example, makes it clear that the assembly will have a duty to ensure the implementation and enforcement of Community obligations in Wales to the extent that such powers have been given to the assembly within the Bill. That being so, the assembly will have a direct interest in the effects of a wide range of European Union legislation.

Mr. Ancram: I want to pursue the matter of concordats. What will happen if the assembly and the Westminster Government cannot agree on a concordat in the absence of anything relating to that possibility being set out in the Bill? What provision will there be for dealing with that situation? Furthermore, how long does a concordat last? Is it signed between the Governments that then exist, to be broken if the Administrations of those countries change? Is a concordat just an informal agreement that, at the end of the day, is not worth the paper on which it is written?

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. He knows that, when dealing with those matters, one Parliament cannot bind a later one. The concordat will be for the duration of the Parliament unless, within that period, both sides agree that there is a need to amend the procedure. There must be flexibility to that extent. As far as we are concerned, there will be no possibility of a concordat not being achieved.


That is something which the Government and the assembly will be able to sort out. The assembly will be involved.

Mr. Öpik: If that is the spirit and intent, as it was on 11 September when the Secretary of State issued the press release from which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) quoted, surely it would be logical to accept the Liberal Democrat amendments. They would take away the vagueness of the concordat and insert a specific structure that everyone could understand.

Mr. Griffiths: We do not want such a structure to be set out in the Bill because we want the flexibility to get everything in place in our discussions with other Government Departments.
The assembly will have the right in full to scrutinise European Union legislation and documents. It will be for the assembly to choose how it gets its view over to Europe. There will be several ways of doing that. There will be the official channel, which is getting the Government to take the assembly's view across to Europe through the Secretary of State. However, there will be Members of the European Parliament in Wales, and the assembly will be able to ensure that its views are known in Europe. There is no problem there.
Negotiations within the United Kingdom to set the United Kingdom line will be a part of the assembly's role. Participation in relevant European negotiations will be open to the assembly at member and at official level. The staff of the assembly will be civil servants and accordingly they will be able to participate in placements at UKREP and other parts of the Commission, just as Government civil servants are already able to do. Those are matters that will be in the concordat. I am giving the Committee a flavour of what will be available.

Mr. Livsey: Why are not the layers of the concordat in the Bill, so that we might know precisely where we are?

Mr. Griffiths: That is because we are negotiating the concordat with other Government Departments.
I have been talking about the sort of matters that will be dealt with and the role of the assembly. Assembly Secretaries will be present at relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers where that has been agreed with the lead United Kingdom Minister. Members have cited instances of when that would be appropriate, and that is what will happen. Assembly Secretaries will be able to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Ancram: No.

Mr. Griffiths: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman and a Committee of the House of Commons that the presence that I have described will be part of the agreement that we shall have within Whitehall and within government. There will be accountability to the House of Commons because all those matters will be publicly reported and known. The Secretary of State for Wales will be able to deliver to the House of Commons any information that the Opposition might want. There is no problem there at all.
The assembly will also implement and enforce European obligations.
The spirit of the amendments will be embraced in the concordat. There is nothing that cannot be dealt with in that process.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I welcome the reassurances that the Minister gave on Second Reading, but I should have preferred to have seen them on the face of the Bill, or at least to have seen a draft of the concordat so that we could discussed it. On the basis of the assurances that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 395, in page 27, line 12, after first 'The', insert 'voting'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 85, page 27, line 16, leave out from 'shall' to 'be'.

No. 396, in page 27, line 19, at end insert—
'(3) In addition to those members referred to in subsection (2). each committee other than the executive committee may co—opt non—voting members.
(4) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (3) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly.'.

No. 397, in page 27, line 19, at end insert—
'(3) In addition to those members referred to in subsection (2), each committee other than the executive committee may co—opt non—voting members.
(4) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (3) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly.
(5) The rules provided for in subsection (4) shall be drawn up having regard to the maintenance of party balance in each committee.'.

No. 398, in clause 54, page 27, line 27, at end insert—
'(4) Each sub—committee may co—opt non—voting members.
(5) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (4) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly.
(6) The rules provided for in subsection (5) shall be drawn up having regard to the maintenance of party balance in each subcommittee.'.

7 pm

Mr. Llwyd: Amendments Nos. 395 to 398 are part and parcel of the same thing. Notes on clauses have a fairly long but inglorious pedigree in this place. The notes accompanying the Bill are a prime example of that genre. All human knowledge and science is there. They say:
Clause 53 provides that the Assembly shall establish certain committees … and that it may establish any others which it considers appropriate.
The second paragraph says the same thing, but in an even less useful way. [Interruption.] I do not for one second suggest that the Secretary of State drew them up,


but somebody did. He is not forthcoming with any information that could be of great value to the debate, if I may say so with the greatest of respect.
The amendment might be considered in part to be a probing amendment, but it has a serious point as well. Its intention is to put on the face of the Bill the right and obligation on subject Committees to co-opt non-voting members on to the Committees. Before I am shouted at from various corners about that being a quango, I can foresee that, occasionally, people who have considerable expertise on a particular subject would be invited on to the Committees. The Committees might also include people who are well qualified in matters concerning local government. Those people might occasionally be elected councillors, but they would generally have an expertise on a subject, as opposed to the way in which quango appointments are made—only on party lines.
The purpose of this raft of amendments is to enrich the quality of debate and assist in the formulation of policy by the various subject Committees.
Under the Bill as it stands, the subject Committees will have a vast amount of work to undertake. The assembly should be a truly inclusive chamber—"inclusive" being the big word in use at the moment, I thought that I had better use it; otherwise, nobody on the Front Bench would listen to me—that is relevant to the people of north-east Wales, south-west Wales, and so on. We have heard the same argument before, although it was made in a rather jocular manner. It is extremely important that the national assembly gains credibility and the necessary respect of all the people of Wales across the political spectrum and geographical spread of the country.
One of the best ways to make the forum popular throughout Wales is to show that the policies are at the cutting edge and are based on the best research available, and that they are practical and practicable. The worst possible scenario would be for the decisions of the various subject Committees that will formulate policies to be challenged widely by the people of Wales as not being in the best interests of Wales. That would indeed be a step backwards.
Although I appreciate that the Government's response might well be to leave the matter for due consideration by the Standing Order Commission, nevertheless this is a fundamentally important point which needs to be debated at this stage.
There has been considerable speculation and discussion about co-opting on to the Regional Committees of the assembly, so the notion of co-opting is not new. It is as least as important to co-opt on to subject Committees. Most of us have had the benefit of being on a Select Committee, and in particular of having input from experts on a given subject. They do indeed enrich the proceedings and assist greatly in the evaluation of evidence and the preparation of reports and practical and achievable recommendations.

Mr. David Hanson: Given what the hon. Gentleman just said, perhaps he will tell the Committee whether those who give the benefit of their advice to the Committee have speaking and voting rights. I think that he will find that they do not.

Mr. Llwyd: The point of the amendment is to co-opt people who would not have voting rights. No doubt there

will be others who will advise the Committee, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I also think that this would be a way to deal with the point in a slightly different and preferable way. Of course, civil servants and the like will assist the Committee, but my view is that the form should be strengthened, in the manner foreseen in the amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies: Let us make it clear that there is nothing in the scheme as it exists to allow any Committee of the assembly to call people to give evidence, and so on. If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that with his amendment, which suggests that the power of co-option should be available—I mean this in a genuine, inclusive way, and am not seeking an argument—it is necessary that he explains what he means by co-option. Does it mean that, to all intents and purposes, the individual is a full member of the Committee, but without voting rights? He really must explain precisely what he means by co-opting, as distinct from the ability of the Committee to call individuals to give specialist evidence.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Secretary of State for that question. Co-option means that the person becomes a member of the Committee, albeit a limited member. That is quite different from the position to which the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred. No doubt, there will be specialist advisers to each Committee, who would be members. They would not have voting rights, but would have speaking rights; otherwise there would be little point in having them there. To all intents and purposes, they would be members of the Committee, dealing specifically with the work of the Committee, and called on to advise it in that capacity. They would not be full members in terms of voting and so on, as that would be completely wrong, as the other members would have been voted on to the Committees through the ballot box, and it would make no sense at all.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Bar, will be familiar with the term "otiose", which has reared its head many times in Committee. Is not his amendment otiose in the sense that there is nothing to preclude the Committee from taking advice and from consulting more widely? Why is it necessary to formalise it in the amendment?

Mr. Llwyd: I do not know whether the people at large are getting the impression that barristers use the word otiose every time they get up, but the hon. Gentleman has used it a few times, as I have. I do not consider the amendment unnecessary; it would be a good step forward. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain why. I believe that the Committees will face an extremely heavy work load, and that another pair of hands—or a couple of pairs of hands—would help, not to vote but to deal with policy and to do the necessary work.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: That would not be democracy.

Mr. Llwyd: It would not be democracy if those concerned were full members, but—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he will no doubt rebut it later in his own way, and I respect the fact that he will probably wish to do so.
It is vital for the relationship between the Executive—or the Cabinet, or whatever term is decided on—and the subject Committees and the assembly to be spelt out clearly. As a matter of sound constitutional law, the Executive should be clearly separated from subject Committees, and should be responsible for the strategic direction of the national assembly as a whole. The subject Committees will probably combine—I say "probably" because it is not clear in the Bill—two functions. One might be a scrutiny function similar to that of Select Committees, although the Secretary of State has just said that the Committees would have no power to require evidence or to summon witnesses. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
The Committees will also have a wider policy-making role: without that, there would be little point in establishing them and requiring those serving on them to devote all their time, expertise and energy to their work. The Welsh Office buzz word nowadays is "inclusivity". I believe that, if that is to become a reality, the amendment will help.
On 27 November, at a press conference when the Bill was launched, the Secretary of State said:
The National Assembly for Wales will be a new and effective form of government. It will be based on modern working and political practices for the good of the whole of Wales. I hope to see political parties working together in a positive way and the development of structures which will allow people as individuals as well as other groups—local government, both sides of industry, the voluntary sector—to get their voice heard. The new … Assembly will be modern, open and accountable. Neither Westminster nor local government will provide the model: the National Assembly will make a fresh start based on the best practices from around the world. It will harness new technology and modern working practices to take Welsh democracy forward to the new millennium.
I would not argue with that. If that is a reflection of what is to come, I welcome it whole-heartedly.
The subject Committees will also be important in the national assembly set-up. In its document "Making the Assembly Work", the Institute of Welsh Affairs says:
The work of the Subject Committees will be central to the Assembly's activities. Major briefs will have to be absorbed. The more Committees a Member serves on, the more demanding will be the task. There will be room for co-option of expert advisers"—
I stress that—
and the Committees should have the power to summon witnesses along the lines of the Select Committees in the House of Commons.
I am not sure whether that is correct; the Secretary of State said that it was not likely.
It will be up to the assembly to determine the number of subject Committees. The Institute of Welsh Affairs thinks that there may be six, but annexe A of the White Paper refers to nine. I understand that they will include Committees on education and training, health, agriculture, local government, and so on.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am sorry that I could not respond to the hon. Gentleman immediately, but he was making a number of points. He questioned whether the assembly would have the power to require people to attend. It will. The power is specified in clause 73(2), which lists the persons and organisations concerned. That is, of course, different from inviting people to give evidence.

Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the Secretary of State. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said initially that

there was no power, so let me say—with the greatest respect—that I am not sure whether he is correcting me or himself. I did not mention summoning; he did. However, I accept what he now says without reservation, and welcome his statement of fact.
The White Paper suggests that there will also be a secondary legislation scrutiny Committee, an audit Committee, and the regional Committees, about which we already know. There will also be a European Committee. It is entirely possible that there will be 15 or 16 Committees, and an even larger number of Sub-Committees.

Let me return to what was said by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). My point to him is this: there will be so much work to be done that it will be vital for the Committees to work well, and for their members to be able to handle their work load.
The case for the amendment is well made. It is made on the basis of the need to bring expertise and assistance to bear, but also on the basis of purely logistical considerations. How on earth is a Member of the Assembly expected to sit on three or four Committees which, of necessity, will have to specialise? I believe that that would be far more onerous than sitting on three or four Select Committees, and, in my respectful submission, it is therefore a nonsensical proposition.
I should be obliged if the Minister would respond to my arguments in detail. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will give due consideration to an amendment that I believe would improve the workings of the assembly.

Ms Julie Morgan: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some important points, some of which I want to take up.
We have emphasised the need to involve as many people as possible in the assembly, and I think that we must use a range of measures to do that. Non-voting co-options is one possible method. That would aid the workings of the assembly by, for instance, addressing some of the problems that will be caused by the possible lack of representation of certain groups. For example, a Committee may be discussing disability, which will clearly be a major issue. A successful strategy for people with learning disabilities was pioneered by the Welsh Office, involving such people and their carers. We could enrich and improve the assembly's workings by allowing people with disabilities to come on to the Committees as non-voting members, but to contribute to their workings over a period.
I do not think that any Committee can plan or discuss, for instance, a Wales strategy for disability unless it contains people who are disabled themselves, perhaps representing organisations for the disabled. That is relevant to a number of areas that the assembly may cover. For example, I hope that it will discuss a race equality strategy for Wales, and I hope that no such discussion will be held without the presence of black people. Indeed, I hope that both black and disabled people will be Members of the Assembly, although, given the way in which things work out, the odds are against it. I think it important for people who experience the issues that we shall try to address in the inclusive assembly that we are establishing to be part of the decision-making process.
I believe that non-voting Members should be co-opted for a period, so that they can take part in the discussions and give the Committee the benefit of their experience. Someone else could then be co-opted for another period, depending on the subject area. Perhaps the assembly will be able to do that, but these points are very important, and should not be lost in the debate.

Mr. Öpik: The Liberal Democrats support the amendments, which strike a chord of common sense. Non-voting members add great value as experts, and are sometimes more impartial observers than voting members. It could be said that non-voting members, unburdened by the stresses of political careers or their own egos, at times add more value, and may be the voice of reason on committees when others around them are losing their heads in internecine disputes. Non-voting members can be regarded as a check or a balance for the debate as a whole.
The amendments would enable non-voting members to know where they stand. The danger of not having these conditions enshrined in the legislation is that non-voting members would be uncertain about their rights, which could harm the contribution that they could make. Being put on the Committee through established formal structures would give them a certain gravitas.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience of student union politics and debating societies. Does he accept that the subject Committees will have to make hard decisions—they will have to weigh up the niceties of the argument—so they must be accountable to the electorate?

Mr. Öpik: I certainly do accept that. Indeed, that serves to emphasise my point. Those hard choices may lead to stress and conflict, and to very charged meetings. Surely, a non-voting member will be much more likely to contribute positively if she or he clearly understands that she or he has a formal role on the Committee, albeit without a vote. In my experience in student unions, and in my own party, the formal co-option system gives non-voting members confidence that they can make a meaningful and reasoned contribution, and, even more important, that they will be respected by voting members.
The system proposed in the amendments would enable officers to advise voting Members that certain co-options would be within the structures established for the assembly. We said earlier that we did not want to transfer the weaknesses of this House to the assembly, one of which is the etiquette that we have to use to make decisions. The assembly is in danger of inheriting a system of co-option without a clearly defined process. If we want a modern, advanced assembly in Wales, we should make the procedure as clear as possible.
The Liberal Democrats support the element of proportionality proposed in amendment No. 398. It is a form of insurance policy: it will ensure that committees are not packed with partisan non-voting members, whose objectives may be rather more sinister. A party should not be able abuse the system and hold up proceedings by refusing to supply its quota, so that it can argue that a Committee should not have any non-voting members.
With that proviso, it is sensible clearly and publicly to enshrine in the Bill the need for political proportionality in appointments. Many non-voting members will probably not have a political affiliation, but will be appointed for their expertise. In which case, I assume that the proportionality consideration would not be relevant.
We support the amendments. They may not be essential, but they are good practice. To say that such practice will occur anyway is no justification for refusing to take the opportunity to clarify and tidy up a part of the legislation that is vague. The Government should take these proposals on board: they are a common-sense improvement, and clarify the details of the process involved.

Mr. Hanson: I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) want to improve the Bill, and speak out of a genuine desire to make it a success. However, the proposals would have a serious impact on the workings of the assembly. One of the reasons why I was passionately in favour of the assembly on 18 September was because I was tired of the who-you-know, what-you-know quango state. There is a danger that the great and the good will be co-opted to the Committees through the who-you-know, what-you-know process.
Accountability is the important thing for the assembly: accountability for decision making, for politics, for expenditure and for the arguments. There is no problem about an individual putting a point of view to a Committee in strong terms and giving advice as a lobbyist inside and outside the chamber and in formal presentations to any existing Committees. That would be a healthy way forward. Individuals with legitimate interests in the matters being discussed in the Committees should be able to express their views. However, there is a world of difference between that and an individual being part of the Committee. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that this Committee of the House should have co-opted members to give an experienced view on the points that we are discussing. At 8.30, we would vote having listened to their views. They may influence the argument, but that would not be democracy.

Mr. Llwyd: How can the hon. Gentleman say that having a minority of experts without voting rights co-opted on to a Committee is undemocratic? I do not follow his argument. There would be accountability, because the elected Members would vote and would ultimately make the decisions.
With respect, I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the present constitution people are co-opted in the other place. I am not a defender of the other place, despite having a colleague there, but it has some very good working peers who are there specifically because they have an expertise.

Mr. Hanson: I believe in the principle of accountability: people should have a mandate from the electorate to speak on an issue in a particular forum, and should not merely be selected by a body and accountable to a Committee. Members of a Committee should be accountable to and get their support from the people of Wales.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee will have


difficulty covering the issues in the time available even if only legitimately elected, mandated representatives speak? If a Committee must take account not just of evidence that it calls, but of co-opted members who sit on it as of right, its proceedings are likely to go on for ever.

Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman has a point: perhaps he has been co-opted to this Committee because of his position as the representative of the New Forest. At least he has a mandate to sit in the Chamber, so his argument is valid.
I am not against the idea of outside expertise influencing the decisions and considerations of a Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. However, Members of the Assembly should be accountable for their decisions. The Committees should not contain people who might advance the prejudiced views of people who have not been elected to the assembly. There should be a clear division such as exists in Select Committees. Those Committees can listen to outside experts and invite written submissions but, ultimately, the members of the Committees determine the agenda, the political priorities and the outcome. That is what they have been elected to do.
Occasionally there may be conflicts of interest. People could be co-opted for a four-year term at the end of which their priorities would be different from what they were at the beginning. What happens when there is a clear division between elected and co-opted members? Elected members have to be accountable for their decisions but I am sure that in my area the Daily Post would make a meal of divisions between co-opted and elected Members. There is a danger of conflict being created where it does not exist.

Mr. Öpik: The answer is clear. The elected Members must have the courage of their convictions. After listening to experts they must make informed decisions. There is no democratic conflict, but perhaps elected Members who ignored the advice of experts would be required to explain more unusual decisions.

Mr. Hanson: There is always accountability. Elected members on a committee are put there by crosses on ballot papers and not by the choice of another committee—a sort of self-selecting oligarchy. Accountability is what the assembly is all about. It is certainly what I campaigned for on 18 September.
Co-opting is not a welcome practice in local government in Wales or elsewhere. Governments have not sought to encourage it and the model has not worked well in local government. The amendments seek to improve the Bill, to strengthen the democratic input to the assembly and to make it more inclusive. I fought for the assembly to end the quango state, but I fear that co-option would extend and develop the quango state. The issues that are in the amendments can be dealt with by Committees taking evidence, soundings and submissions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) raised the valid issues of disabled people and those from ethnic minorities. Those can be dealt with by presentation and sympathy and by listening to people's views. It will not necessarily be dealt with by co-opting people. In some cases, dare I say it, such a move would

be seen as patronising. People who are co-opted to a Committee because are disabled or from an ethnic minority may have intrinsic gifts that could, as independents or members of political parties, enable them to play a role in a Committee.

Ms Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend makes an important point about people being patronised. It is always raised when efforts are made to be more inclusive and to have the views of minorities expressed in a committee. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but when we try to be inclusive and a bit more adventurous to make everyone in Wales feel that he has a stake in the assembly, we sometimes have to experiment and run the risk of being accused of being patronising or of not sticking strictly to a mandate. We must take such steps if we are to become more inclusive.

Mr. Hanson: I take my hon. Friend's comments on board because they are worthy of discussion. The debate has opened some bear traps and to be caught in them would not improve the process and would dilute my main reason for wanting the assembly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made a valid intervention about difficult decisions. Some decisions will be down to the elected Members who are accountable for them. Under co-option, people who do not have a mandate will be responsible for defending a difficult decision only to the people who co-opted them. People who owe their position to those who co-opted them to a committee are sometimes reluctant to speak out on difficult decisions that affect their interest group or their expertise group. Those who are outside the Committee structure can put a cogent case in evidence about why a particular stance should be adopted. Those who owe their position on a Committee to assembly patronage may temper their comments. The matter needs to be seriously considered, but on the basis of what has been said in the debate, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Jenkin: In part, the co-option that the amendments seek tries to compensate for the fact that the assembly is something of a monocameral legislature. The effort to bring in talent from outwith the political party maelstrom is not intrinsically objectionable. It is a good move and, as we contemplate parallel discussions on the future of the other place, we should keep it close to our hearts that there would be no point in having extra elected people in the Welsh assembly. The richness of political debate in the assembly could be enhanced by bringing in talent that is not imprisoned by party politics.
There is much to be said for the speech by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). We enter two caveats about the amendments. First, how far should the legislation determine the detail of the assembly's standing orders? That will be one of the themes of our comments. The Bill stipulates quite detailed arrangements but large areas will be left for determination by the assembly. How much is stuck in the Bill and how much is left to the assembly are arbitrary matters.
Secondly, if we stipulate the composition of the Committees, the concept of party balance is important. Amendment No. 396, unlike amendment No. 397, does not state that there should be party balance in the Committees. Our amendment No. 85 deletes part of


Clause 52(2)(b) to exclude the possibility of even advisory Committees not having party balance. Why should we not stipulate that all Committees of the assembly should have party balance? Why does party balance become unnecessary in an advisory Committee?
All parliamentary Committees are advisory and Parliament can overturn a Committee's recommendations. All our Committees reflect party balance. Perhaps an alternative is to allow assembly Committees to operate an open-house policy similar to the one that applies to Committees that examine delegated legislation under which any hon. Member can attend and speak but may not vote. That may be one way to address the matter, but we cannot understand why subsection (2)(b) should read as it does.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I did not expect that these amendments, touching as they do on co-option, would have generated so much controversy. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who, in his opposition to the amendments, displayed a deep knowledge of local government, which perhaps was absent from comments made by some Opposition Members.
Yes, the assembly has to be inclusive in the sense that it should reach out to all sections of opinion in Wales, but in my view, and it is shared by other Labour Members, inclusiveness should be achieved not in a formalised way, but by taking advice informally, by undertaking extensive consultation and by reaching out to people. In that sense, the amendments are unnecessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn put his finger on something significant. In their eagerness to enshrine inclusiveness within the workings of the assembly, perhaps accidentally, Opposition Members have confused the whole issue of accountability. By having co-opted members on a subject Committee, various problems arise. One has been alluded to by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). It involves the extent to which debating time could be taken over by a co-opted member. There is also a problem in relation to the influence that that particular co-opted member might have.
Although patronising comments were made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the need for Committee members to take the advice of experts in their sector, but the fact remains that co-opted experts would not be accountable. That lies at the heart of the issue and it is why I cannot endorse the amendments.

Mr. Robert Syms: I agree with the hon. Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). I do not believe that elected and unelected members mix well. For several years, I sat on a local authority, where there were problems initially with Church members who voted on the education committee. Then their vote was taken away, but some conflict always arose between those people and those who had authority and accountability.
It is possible to be well informed, to be well briefed and to take the widest possible view and have just elected members determine policy. One has to remember that members not only serve on a committee, but have a broader responsibility to the body corporate. Sometimes,

hard and difficult decisions may have to be taken. Elected members know that, at some point, they have to take those decisions. It will be easy for an unelected member to take over the show and to try to showboat somewhat, going against what might be politically necessary for the assembly.
Overall, co-option is not sensible. Taking advice from the widest possible context is great, but elected members should debate and determine policy.

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had a constructive debate; it is good to see the official Opposition again making a constructive contribution. Clause 53 provides for the establishment of assembly Committees. It establishes the principle that the membership of each Committee should so far as possible reflect the political balance of the assembly, but that principle is not to apply where the Committee
exists solely to provide advice".
Amendment No. 85 seeks to delete those words, so that all Committees of the assembly, whether or not of an advisory character, would have memberships reflecting the political balance of the assembly. Amendments Nos. 395 to 398 provide for assembly Committees to have co-option powers, albeit limited to the co-option of non-voting members.
We are not persuaded that Committees that are established by the assembly to advise it on a particular matter should inevitably be established on the basis of strict party balance. We think, for example, that the assembly might want to establish specialist advisory Committees where the interests or qualifications of individual members are more important than political affiliations. An example might be in relation to child abuse: an advisory Committee of Members with particular knowledge of how such a matter has been handled might considerably assist the relevant assembly Committee in formulating its policy.
Therefore, given that these will be advisory Committees, rather than Committees with decision-making powers, we would prefer to retain the flexibility in the present wording of the subsection. If the amendment were accepted, it might be difficult on occasions to establish the right sort of advisory Committee on a specialist matter that often does not have any specific party political aspect.

The issue of co-option excited much debate. There are no provisions in the Bill for co-option to take place. The availability of such powers has been the subject of criticism in relation to local government. In 1986, paragraph 5.99 of the report of the Widdecombe Committee said:
We consider that the membership of decision-taking committees should be limited to councillors, and believe that this would clarify accountability … It needs to be clear, whether or not there is a vote, that the decisions of a committee is a decision of councillors alone and this can only be achieved by limiting membership of decision-taking committees to councillors.
We believe that, in the interests of clear accountability, that reasoning should apply to assembly Committees, so we have not provided for co-option.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) seemed at one point to imply that the National Assembly for Wales would be so overloaded


with work and Committees that one of the purposes of having co-opted members would be to take some of the load off elected members. I do not think that that is an appropriate reason to have co-opted members. What is important—my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) expressed this view, which was supported by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms)—is that there is a better way in which to include people and to make them feel that they are part of decision making. That involves specifically inviting them to give their views, whether on an issue relating to disability or to the needs of ethnic minorities.
Whatever the subject under scrutiny might be, there is provision for the assembly and its Committees to be able to invite people. Of course, they would not be able to force those people to be there unless they were members of the bodies that are listed in schedule 4, but co-option is not the appropriate way because there would then be some blurring of accountability. If a Committee had deadlines and one or two co-opted members took a greater share of the debating time, there could be recriminations. We believe that the obvious way in which to achieve inclusion is to be able to call people as experts to Committees so that their expertise is shared. We do not deny the need for experts, but we do not believe that co-option is the way forward.
We accept everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who rightly expressed concern about the way in which people from minorities—whether an ethnic minority or people who are disabled. The assembly's Committees will have to hear those people, but we believe that the best way to do that is by inviting them to give evidence.
I hope that the Committee accepts that the Bill provides for people who are not elected, but who have expertise, to play a full part. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Llwyd: When I moved the amendment, I said that it was probing. It has been an interesting debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55

DELEGATION TO COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES AND STAFF

Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in page 27, line 30, leave out from 'Assembly' to end of line 31.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove the assembly's ability to delegate any function to a member of its staff. We want to ensure that responsibility within the assembly for all activity formally rests with elected representatives and Committees of elected representatives, rather than with those who are employed by the assembly, not elected to it. I see smiles of joy on the faces of Labour Members—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who cannot contain himself.

Mr. Hanson: Why does the hon. Gentleman support co-option, but oppose delegation?

Mr. Öpik: Without re-running our previous debate, I remind the hon. Gentleman that had the Committee agreed to co-opted members, that would not have taken away the responsibility of elected Members to vote on matters regardless of the advice of the non-voting, co-opted members. If the hon. Gentleman is now rejecting his former arguments, I invite him to intervene and say that he will oppose this amendment. I shall pursue my argument and then see what he has to say about it.
First, to "delegate any function" to a member of staff is too wide-ranging a provision. Unlike co-option, the clause proposes to delegate actual activities to unelected members of staff. The way in which the clause is phrased ascribes real responsibility and real decision-making powers to people who have not been elected. That contrasts with the situation of co-opted members, who would not have the right to vote, but who would have the right to give advice. That was the core of our previous debate. To be even more specific, the clause does not include a description of what functions can be delegated. Theoretically, at least, anything we could imagine could be delegated to an unelected officer of the assembly.
Secondly, there is no clarity about how such individuals could be seen by voters as being brought to book. As they would be employees rather than elected representatives, they would not have the same responsibility as elected Members to a constituency of support. If the hon. Member for Delyn wants to be consistent, he should support the amendment on the ground that he has been emphatic about his concern that even an assembly Committee with advice givers with no vote would be too strong a departure from responsibility being held by elected Members.
The delegation of any function is non-democratic in the wider sense. Our discussion about co-option has clearly highlighted what certain Labour Members believe. More to the point, the discussion caused excitement and concern that non-voting individuals would have such huge influence, gravitas and sway over elected Members that it could pervert the course of democracy.
If an officer is working on his own or in an unelected team, we do not need to suspect that he will make decisions—the clause overtly provides the authority for him to do so. That is not wrong in itself, but, as a democrat, I feel that it is dangerous to pursue that path because, inevitably, decisions will be made behind closed doors. No doubt, because of the high quality of staff, they will generally be good decisions, but the staff are not ultimately democratically accountable.
My third concern is that with the planned committee structure, there is no need to prescribe the formal delegation of responsibilities to individual members of staff. I shall explain how a business would deal with delegation. The removal of the provision relating to delegation to staff would not mean that the elected Members would have to carry out all the work; it would mean that elected Members and Committees would be responsible for carrying the can for the outcome of any work that was carried out. That is not a subtle distinction; it is a profoundly important one. It means that the buck cannot be passed down to unelected officers if things go wrong. In other words, elected representatives would always be brought to book if things did not go according to plan. That would be common practice in business. If we want to have a businesslike assembly, we should follow that common practice.
The debate about co-option was interesting in underlining how all of us are committed to ensuring that democratic processes are not just carried out, but are seen to be carried out. It would be a matter of confidence for the public if they knew that the assembly could not, in theory, delegate wholesale the important decision-making functions to members of staff. In practice, there may be an element of scaremongering by those who suggest that the assembly would be so lazy as not to carry out or take responsibility for the functions carried out by staff. I do not think that that will happen, but there is no point in leaving a hostage to fortune in the wording of the Bill. That is why I tabled the amendment.

Mr. Jenkin: We are inherently attracted to the amendment. We cannot understand why the assembly should be allowed to shuffle off its responsibilities on to unelected members of staff. I do not believe, although I stand to be corrected, that the Bill contains a definition of "staff'. Therefore, if we leave the Bill as it is, Parliament's intentions are far from clear.
It is extraordinary that, after all the apparent clamouring for a Welsh assembly, no sooner will the assembly Members have all these responsibilities than they will want to hand them over to their members of staff. That is the implication in the Bill.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I am always scared when I see a lawyer jumping up in front of me.

Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a whole range of mundane functions, such as employing people to repair the roof—to be topical—or to carry out all sorts of ancillary functions, that, on any common-sense view, need to be delegated to the staff? Does it not fly in the face of reality to say that there is strength in the amendment? The clause is purely an enabling measure.

Mr. Jenkin: Although—unlike the hon. Gentleman—I am not a lawyer, I do not think that that is what the clause says. It does not say that mundane matters may be delegated to the assembly staff; it says that any function may be delegated. It is perfectly reasonable for assembly staff to act on behalf of elected Members, but it is quite another matter for functions to be delegated formally to staff.
I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). Although we are being told that the assembly will provide an escape from the "quangocracy" that has dominated Welsh politics for too long, allowing such delegation would seem to take us in the wrong direction. Undoubtedly, however, the Minister will be able to give us a full and adequate explanation. I look forward to hearing his reply.

8 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for moving the amendment, because it gives us a chance to explain exactly why the Bill makes such provision. As hon. Members know, delegation is the principal mechanism for distributing functions to

Committees and to individuals within the assembly. In central government, a principle of constitutional law—known as the Carltona principle—acknowledges that a Minister's functions can be performed on his or her behalf by duly authorised officials.
In considering the assembly, however, the Government had some doubt about whether the Carltona principle would automatically apply in the new and novel circumstances of the National Assembly for Wales. Rather than leaving the matter to chance, we thought that we would include in the Bill a clause dealing with the daily management of government, at least as practised at Westminster.
I should underline the fact that delegating a function to an official does not mean that the assembly Secretary or the assembly will not be responsible if something should go wrong. Some planning appeals provide a simple current example of how a Minister delegates a function. In certain well-defined circumstances, the Planning Inspectorate carries on with the job of dealing with the appeals, and the Minister does not get involved administratively in that part of the procedure.
Clause 55 attempts only to ensure that there is a proper defence for executing government functions in Wales as they are executed in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The proposed provision is exactly the same as current provisions applying in the Welsh Office and in relationships between Ministers and civil servants. Responsibility will still rest with the assembly Secretaries or the assembly, and the clause will not permit any passing of the buck. I hope that that explanation of the clause's intention—to clarify the position and to remove a legal loophole—will persuade the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) painted a graphic picture of assembly Members clambering across the roof to fix it—which would do wonders in improving the public image of politicians, and is perhaps the strongest argument in favour of passing the amendment. Nevertheless, the Minister has very helpfully defined the Government's intention in including the clause in the Bill. On that basis—despite the jangled nerves of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) in relation to democratic accountability; I hope that he will forgive me for assuming that his nerves have been calmed, as mine have—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 56 and 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 29, line 12, at end insert—
'(3A) No function may be delegated to the Assembly First Secretary under subsection (3) above unless the executive committee (or the sub-committee, as the case may be) decides by no less than a two-thirds majority to make that delagation.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 198, in page 29, leave out lines 13 to 17.

Mr. Livsey: The Bill would allow the Executive Committee to delegate any function to the First Secretary, in the same manner as it would delegate functions to staff members. We believe that that power is too wide-ranging and perhaps even dangerous. The amendment would prevent delegation to the First Secretary without a two thirds majority vote of the Executive Committee or of the Sub-Committee that is making the delegation. We think that the amendment would prevent one or two Members from deciding very narrowly to delegate functions to the First Secretary and that it would provide a necessary check.

Mr. Letwin: Amendment No. 27 takes us back to our earlier debate on amendment No. 10A—specifically, amendment No. 31, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—and on the articulation of clause 57 with clause 58. I believe that the Liberal Democrats, in tabling amendment No. 27, are guilty of a certain incoherence. They may share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and Conservative Members the ambition—which they expressed earlier in the debate—of establishing a cabinet system rather than a committee system, but their amendment will not achieve that effect. Amendment No. 27 would clarify the model that I mentioned earlier in the debate, but it would not help in developing cabinet government.
In the case of one Committee—the Executive Committee—no information has been vouchsafed in the Bill. The Executive Committee is quite the most remarkable Committee that 1 have come across in a piece of legislation. Its powers are entirely indistinct; it may have very great powers or very few powers. The matter will be left entirely to the Standing Orders.
Although the Minister may correct me in his reply, I believe that it would be within the scope of the Standing Orders, as permitted by the Bill, to give the Executive Committee complete power. I can find in the Bill no checks on the Executive Committee. Let us imagine the extreme situation in which the Committee has been given complete power. It would be extraordinarily important to determine whether the Executive Committee could or could not delegate all its functions to the First Secretary, giving him plenary power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said, that would be a case of one man, one vote. The one man would be the First Secretary, who would vote for all on all occasions. It would be the extremity of autocracy.
In a more moderate situation, in which powers have been delegated to a number of Committees and in which the Executive Committee has a defined remit that is not so great as complete power, limiting the Executive Committee's ability to delegate its powers to the First Secretary would make sense only if there were a series of coherent and parallel amendments ensuring that—by a two thirds majority, or by some other qualified majority—the other Committees could delegate their powers to their Secretaries.
Under those circumstances, we would have a coherent Bill as opposed to a mess. The amendment would, indeed, make the Welsh assembly in some respects parallel to local government. The assembly would be governed by Committees, each in turn governed by proportional representation reflecting the composition of the assembly. One could envisage that officers would work for a

Committee as a whole, as in local government, and that decisions would be made on a rather muddled, but fairly transparent basis and with the guidance of officers, as in local government.
If, on the contrary, the amendment is not accepted, we shall be in a muddle. One possible resolution of that muddle is to move in the opposite direction. We could have cabinet government, but of an extreme kind and without the accountability that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes rightly seeks to have installed in the Bill.
This debate ought to give the Minister a chance to tell us what he so signally failed to tell us in response to the debate on an earlier set of amendments: in which direction the Government intend to go. Do they intend to establish Committees that will govern as Committees, with officers bringing forward matters for open discussion, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) suggested, or do they intend to create the opposite system, whereby power is delegated to individual Secretaries or to the First Secretary who will be able to govern without the slightest accountability? Alternatively, do they intend to create something for which the Bill does not provide—a middle course in which a set of people who are not accountable govern Wales? If the third option is what the Government intend, I hope that the Minister, in replying to this rather incoherent, but well-intentioned amendment, will try to come up with a middle course—a system of government for Wales which would be recognisable as effective and accountable.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The amendments give us the opportunity to reconsider delegation as a mechanism for distributing functions to Committees and individuals within the assembly and perhaps also to return to the earlier debate about the nature of the Executive Committee and the constraints on its powers—constraints that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) fears do not exist.
The assembly is empowered to delegate functions to the Executive Committee. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 58 permit the Executive Committee further to delegate functions to the First Secretary, but subsection (4) makes it clear that the assembly can "limit or exclude" the Executive Committee's power to do that in a given case. The Executive Committee does not have a wholly untrammelled right to pass up powers to the First Secretary. The assembly as a whole has a constraining power.
Amendment No. 27 would limit the Executive Committee's ability to delegate to the First Secretary in the first place by requiring a two thirds majority to approve any such delegation. As the hon. Member for West Dorset pointed out, there is a contradiction in that amendment No. 198 would remove the assembly's powers to prevent or limit the delegation of a particular function to the First Secretary. We cannot accept either amendment. Amendment No. 27 would place a wholly artificial constraint on the Executive Committee's power to delegate, whereas our approach is to enable the assembly to develop flexibly to meet the new circumstances that it will face. I remind the Committee that clause 70 explicitly provides for the First Secretary to be held to account through questions, so there is no possibility of the unaccountable delegation of power.
8.15 pm
In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset was much exercised about the First Secretary's being able to legislate, as he put it, without any constraints. The hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, in fact considering the exercise of Executive functions, but I point out to him that clause 65(2) requires subordinate legislation to be approved by the assembly.
Clause 66(2)(a) allows for approval by the assembly to be waived if the Executive Committee determines that in particular circumstances it is not reasonably practicable to seek assembly approval. That is a very specific and narrow remit. If that were done, clause 66(3) allows Members within 40 days to move a resolution that the subordinate legislation be revoked. Therefore, there are already a number of checks and balances within the legislation, even if powers are delegated from the Executive Committee to the First Secretary. The assembly is clearly always in control and could take steps to revoke an action or call the First Secretary to account.

Mr. Letwin: What the Minister has just said is very helpful. Much of his argument hangs on clause 65(2), but how wide is the scope of that clause intended to be? For example, would it prohibit the Secretary of a Committee or, in this case, the First Secretary from issuing a circular under the powers that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has in England and which in Wales lie with the Secretary of State for Wales, and which will, therefore, have been delegated under the transfer order powers? Would it prevent him from issuing a circular or from making discretionary judgments about expenditures, or would it merely prevent him from bringing forward and enacting orders without taking them to the full assembly? If it would simply prevent the latter, would he simply have to do what is done in this House when an order is subjected to the affirmative or negative resolution? If that is the only check—that is, if the First Secretary or the Secretary of a Committee could take matters to the point of laying orders, often subjecting them only to a negative resolution—the democratic check that the Minister is claiming exists is very slight.

Mr. Griffiths: I was replying specifically to the issue that the hon. Gentleman had raised earlier and with which I was not able to deal in the context of that debate because of the time constraint. The First Secretary will not have a free hand in terms of subordinate legislation because it requires the approval of the assembly.
I have to say that I do not believe that a circular is subordinate legislation. Nevertheless, I find it hard to see the First Secretary, having had delegated to him from the Executive Committee the power to issue a circular, issuing circulars that would properly be the domain of the assembly's subject Committees. If that sort of delegation were to happen, the only fallback would be for the assembly to call the First Secretary to account if it believed that that circular was improper or that it provided advice of which the assembly did not approve. The assembly would, therefore, still have a check on the power of the First Secretary under any Executive Committee delegations to him.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to ask a further and final question. Does he agree that

the Bill places no limit on the items that can be delegated to the Executive Committee? Although he does not suppose that the power of circular—which might be widely used, not just in matters of education, and might have behind it the power of expenditure—will be delegated to the Executive Committee rather than to a subject Committee, does he accept that it is possible because there is no limit on what can be delegated to the Executive Committee?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. Technically, under the provisions of the Bill it could happen. However, the hon. Member for West Dorset should ask himself to what extent any politician in any assembly or parliament would be likely willingly to delegate everything upwards through an Executive Committee to one person. In the real world, that is not likely to happen. Even if it did, the assembly would still have the power to call the First Secretary to book and to make changes if the entire assembly disapproved of any decision. In that respect, we can be quite clear that the assembly has a check on the power of the First Secretary.
Amendment No. 198 would prevent the assembly from limiting or excluding delegation to the First Secretary in any given case. It seems to go in the opposite direction. It might well be appropriate for a particularly controversial matter, such as a major town and country planning order, not be delegated to an individual for decision, as is the case now when the Secretary of State can call in an application of enormous significance. We would not want to prevent the assembly or any planning Committee from being able to consider such an issue rather than referring it to the First Secretary. Under subsection (4), the assembly has the right to limit delegation. That is important to cover certain specific controversial points. I hope that, having heard those explanations, the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Livsey: I thank the Minister for his explanation which was sincere and meticulous. His answers to the probing questions from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made us realise that there were more than superficial powers controlling the First Secretary in respect of the Executive Committee. However, we must realise that the Executive Committee will be an extremely powerful body in the assembly.
The debate has enabled us to find out more about the powers of the Executive Committee, the checks and balances in relation to the First Secretary and the lines of accountability. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

MEMBERS OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ETC.

Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 364, in page 30, line 3, at end insert
'but that number shall not be less than eight.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 365, in clause 61, page 30, line 22, at end insert
'but that number shall not be less than eight.'.

Mr. Öpik: The amendments seek to set a minimum number of eight Members for the Scrutiny Committee and the Audit Committee, which have to be seen as fair and equitable. It is vital that no one can question their integrity, so it seems sensible to set a minimum number of members of those two Committees—we suggest eight—as that would guarantee sufficient debate among a cross section of assembly Members to ensure that justice is done. There is never a watertight guarantee of that, but we can be pretty certain that if the Welsh people vote sensibly, a selection of eight assembly Members will be a reasonable reassurance to one and all that the Committees act responsibly and fairly. That is the purpose of the amendments and we very much look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Jenkin: We believe that the principle of setting a minimum number of members of the Audit Committee is a good one. We are open to persuasion as to whether the number should be eight, but it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why he has not suggested that there should be a minimum number.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 60 provides for the establishment by the assembly of a subordinate legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose function it will be to consider the vires of any proposed assembly order or to draw attention to any unusual use of the order-making power. Clause 61 provides for the establishment of an assembly Audit Committee, which will work closely with the newly created Auditor General for Wales. Each of those important Committees will be chaired by a member of one of the Opposition parties in the assembly. Each will have a membership reflecting the overall composition of the assembly. The Bill proposes that the actual number of members of each Committee should be provided for in Standing Orders. The amendments suggest a minimum of eight.
The Government have no objection in principle to the Scrutiny Committee and the Audit Committee having eight or more members, but we do not consider it necessary to put a minimum number of eight on the face of the Bill. Taking account of the debate this evening and the fact that, in principle, the Government do not object to a minimum of eight members, it would be more sensible not to include that number in the Bill as there may be a later move to re-order matters and the Standing Orders provide more flexibility.
It is more important that both Committees will be chaired by members of Opposition parties. When one considers the need to maintain a balance between the parties, it is clear that eight would be the absolute minimum. In practice, the figure is likely to be higher. We believe that the matter should be decided under the Standing Orders and, given the Government's view, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Öpik: It sounds from the Minister's response that he is not planning a cabal. That is encouraging. On the

assumption that the first assembly is likely to set a precedent or an etiquette in respect of the number of members on the Committees, we feel wholly satisfied with the Minister's response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 401, in page 30, line 19, after second 'the', insert 'Financial'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 402, in page 30, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) The Assembly shall establish a committee to be known as the Environmental Audit Committee.'.

No. 403, in page 30, line 21, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.

No. 404, in page 30, line 23, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.

No. 405, in page 30, line 26, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.

No. 406, in page 30, line 28, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.

No. 407, in page 30, line 29, after third 'the', insert 'Financial'.

No. 408, in page 30, line 31, at end insert—
'(5A) The Assembly shall elect one of the members of the Environmental Audit Committee to chair the Committee but a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it.'.

No. 409, in page 30, line 33, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.

No. 410, in page 30, line 34, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.

No. 411, in page 30, line 34, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.

No. 415, in clause 73, page 36, line 15, leave out 'Committee' and insert 'Committees'.

Mr. Dafis: I must be very quick. I simply ask the Minister to respond to the idea of establishing an Environmental Audit Committee in the assembly. The Government are committed to sustainable development and have established an Environmental Audit Select Committee in the House. They regard it as a key mechanism to ensure that environmental policies are delivered across Departments. I hope that the Minister can respond quickly.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already told the House that, in accordance with the White Paper, he will bring forward an amendment on sustainable development. He has also asked the National Assembly advisory group to consider an Environmental Audit Committee because he has received representations on


that. Given our positive view on sustainability and the request to the advisory group, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dafis: rose—

It being half-past Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

REGIONAL COMMITTEES

Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 12A, in page 30, leave out lines 36 and 37.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 90, in page 30, line 36, leave out from 'establish' to end of line 2 on page 31 and insert—

'five regional committees for each of the five regions of Wales.

(2) The areas comprising each of the five regions shall be determined from time to time by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales.'.

No. 13A, in page 30, line 38, leave out 'also'.

No. 14A, in page 30, line 38, leave out 'other'.

No. 15A, in page 30, line 39, after 'Wales', insert
', listed in subsection (3) below,'.

No. 17A, in page 30, line 41, leave out from 'constitute' to end of line 1 on page 31 and insert
'North Wales, Mid Wales, West Wales and South East Wales'.

Mr. Livsey: These are some of the most important amendments for debate tonight. They refer to the regions of the assembly. No offence is meant to north Wales by our proposal in amendment No. 12A to leave out reference to it. Our aim, expressed in amendment No. 17A, is to have four regions of Wales—north, mid, west and south-east. We want to restructure the Regional Committees. That is necessary to ensure inclusivity throughout Wales. Every region of Wales must feel that it is included in the running of the assembly and that it has a part to play.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The four areas that the hon. Gentleman has referred to have different populations. Would not the mid-Wales Committee be exceptionally small? It would have only Powys and Ceredigion and would be unbalanced.

Mr. Livsey: As a Member for a mid-Wales constituency, I cannot accept that view. Powys alone runs for 132 miles—equivalent to the distance from the Severn bridge to Hammersmith flyover. On top of that there is

Ceredigion. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), but the Development Board for Rural Wales considers his constituency to be part of that area as well.
The population is not evenly spread throughout Wales. There has to be redress, because some areas are very rural—more rural than anywhere else in Great Britain below the highland line in Scotland. There are special needs of geography.
The Liberal Democrats want the four Regional Committees to have the right to provide the assembly with advice about their region and to take on powers delegated from the assembly. We want to remove all references to north Wales, not because we want to be unkind to north Wales but because we want to put all the regions in the Bill and have fair play for the other regions to establish an inclusive assembly.
The Bill establishes Committees for north Wales and the regions and states that they may provide advice, but it does not specify where they will be. It provides that Standing Orders will be used to determine the regions; we want to go further and specify them. Why is north Wales mentioned when none of the other regions are? We realise that it might have been felt that the people of north Wales were left out of the referendum process. We are sure that that was not the case, but there was a specific reference to reassure the people of north Wales that they would be included.
The proposals in the Bill could stigmatise the north and suggest that it is inferior to the south. Of course it is nothing of the sort, but the proposals are not good for the north and make other forgotten regions, such as mid-Wales, even more forgotten. We do not want that. That is why we want to omit the references to north Wales.
Amendment No. 90, tabled by the Conservatives, has some good points. It would remove references to north Wales and introduce five regions. We would support that, but the amendment would also remove the right of the regions to provide advice to the assembly about the area. We cannot support the amendment because of that provision.
To have real teeth, the Regional Committees should be able to have responsibilities delegated from the assembly. We want local accountability, subsidiarity and true devolution. We want to bring devolution home to the regions of Wales.
Our proposals are particularly relevant to the difference between rural issues and urban issues. How can a majority of south Wales urban Members take sensible decisions about rural affairs that affect mid-Wales and north Wales? Such debates need to be informed. Amendment No. 16A would help. It is important that Regional Committees should meet in the regions. Local matters should be considered as near as possible to the affected area.
The amendments deal with many issues. We feel strongly that the regions of Wales should be defined so that they can participate in the whole and make a worthwhile contribution to a successful Welsh assembly and the successful government of Wales. People should feel involved in the decision-making process.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The clause goes back to the dark days of the summer, when the


devolution project was doing very badly in opinion polls in the north. The White Paper made specific mention of north Wales only. It was a clear plug to keep the doubting north Wales voter on side and an acknowledgement that the project was not going well in the north. The referendum result showed that the Government were right. Only Gwynedd and Anglesey voted for devolution.
I live on the border and have relations near Wrexham. My experience is that those real doubts still exist. There is real concern in the north that the assembly will be dominated by the south. [Interruption.] Would the Secretary of State like to intervene? No. In the markets of Oswestry and Wrexham, there is no demand for a switch of governmental powers from Westminster to the south of Wales. That is a fact and it is acknowledged by the Secretary of State, whose razor-sharp mind is now being applied to the drafting of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has time and again proved how badly the Bill has been drafted. That may be because the Secretary of State has been distracted. He has had to put out a bush fire in his constituency party concerning the manner in which the referendum was conducted. He has also been scouring estate agents' windows in south Wales for a suitable site for the assembly.
It is the job of us in opposition, stuck in the trenches, to try to come up with a Bill that will work. The relic of the White Paper in clause 62 cannot be left as it is. It is woolly, vague and typical of the general muddle of the Bill. Amendment No. 90 clearly states that there should be five regions. These would be roughly equal in size of electorate to the European constituencies, which vary from 17.9 per cent. of the Welsh electorate to about 21.6 per cent.
I hope that that will satisfy the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), who rightly criticised the Liberal Democrats' amendment—No. 17A—which proposes four uneven regions. The regions that we propose would also give some framework to the additional Members, who are bouncing around without any clear framework in which to work.

Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paterson: I would be delighted to.

Mr. Liwyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted when I have finished my intervention.
Is the hon. Gentleman honestly suggesting that a Committee should cover an area the size of the Wales Mid and West European constituency—from Eglwysbach, which is three miles from Llandudno, to Llanelli on the south Wales coast? Is he seriously telling the Committee that that is an adequate boundary?

Mr. Paterson: That is exactly the boundary that will be used for the election of regional list Members, which I understand the hon. Gentleman's party supports.
We should return to the ordinary Welsh voter who has a problem and wants it solved. The Secretary of State and I have discussed the matter in the Welsh Affairs Committee, but not to my satisfaction. Let us consider a project that could involve substantial inward investment—possibly from a European business—but could cause potential long-term environmental problems.
Does the voter go to his district councillor; does he go to his directly elected assembly man; does he go to the party hack—the additional Member—who is elected on the proportional list; does he go to his Member of Parliament, who will not be overtaxed by work once the assembly is set up; does he go to his Member of the European Parliament; or does he go to the great panjandrum himself, the Secretary of State, who will also be short of things to do once the assembly is set up? It is not clear. The rules have not been laid down. I particularly dislike the Liberal Democrat amendment, which adds yet more confusion to the muddle by proposing four areas, as opposed to the five that we propose.
The ordinary voter has to pay the bill, yet there is not a hint of what the Regional Committees will cost. There is not a whiff of how they will operate. The matter is left to the Standing Orders. I would like some information from the Minister—otherwise, the proposals are a pig in a poke. We want the Regional Committees to work, but we would like to be able to tell the people of Wales what they will cost and how they will work. In the meantime, the Bill would be immeasurably improved if the House accepted our amendment No. 90.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I warmly welcome the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and congratulate him on his sojourn on the Front Bench. I do not know whether it is intended that another barrel be added to the gun that has been firing intermittently from the Ribble Valley. We shall have to see whether North Shropshire can meet the firepower requirements, which so far have not served the Opposition Benches well. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not get off to quite the start that I expected, given the confusion he showed while speaking to amendment No. 90 and commenting on those tabled by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey).
Clause 62 requires the assembly to establish Regional Committees of an advisory character for all parts of Wales, but specifically one for north Wales. North Wales was specifically highlighted because concerns were identified from the start that north Wales felt isolated from Wales as a whole. In order to show that the Government were determined that north Wales would be an integral and full player in the National Assembly for Wales, we specifically suggested a North Wales Committee. There will be Regional Committees in other parts of Wales. We have left the advisory group to suggest the configuration which would make most sense politically, economically and socially.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister has not addressed the problem that people in north Wales are worried that the assembly will be weighted towards south Wales. If we leave the division of the Regional Committee areas to the assembly, south Wales will have the final say. That is the concern in north Wales.

Mr. Griffiths: I fail to see how the configuration of two, three or four Regional Committees in the rest of Wales can have any significant bearing on the role of an Advisory Committee in north Wales. We identified specifically a part of Wales which should be most definitely recognised as a region with an Advisory


Committee of its own. For the rest of Wales, where the matter was not so clear, we felt that it would be best to consult on the boundaries.
Amendment No. 90 suggests that we should use the European constituency boundaries, which have a political role given the election of people on the additional Member list. We do not see any necessity to be constrained by that political situation when trying to make sense of the economic and social needs of Wales. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out that to use the European constituency of Wales Mid and West would create a regional advisory Committee for almost all of west Wales—from north to south.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) display an ignorance that is extraordinary even for somebody who purports to be the nearest thing the Conservative party has to a Welsh Tory?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a burden the hon. Member for North Shropshire has to bear. He is obviously cracking up under the strain.
All the north Wales Members of Parliament campaigned for the National Assembly and they clearly felt that there was a positive aspect to having a Regional Committee for north Wales.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Recalling the debate on the Floor of the House on the boundary commission report that led to the creation of the five current Euro-constituencies, on which the most recent Euro-elections, in 1994, were fought, can my hon. Friend confirm that, whereas coherence is a desideratum in boundary commission reports, it is only a secondary desideratum to trying to achieve an equal population in each region, whereas, in any committee structure that we devise, coherence must come first and population equality would be only a subsidiary consideration?

Mr. Griffiths: I can confirm that my hon. Friend is correct on that point. The report resulted in much heart-searching in political parties in Wales about how best to configure the Euro-constituencies, bearing in mind the population requirements and the fact that, perhaps for other reasons, the boundaries that were chosen were not ideal. The advisory group will consider what the best configuration of regional advisory Committee boundaries in Wales will be.
We need to bear in mind—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy did not mention it this time, but he has in the past—the local debate that is going on about the way in which his constituency and local authority area should be located for these purposes.
The advisory group will be able to consider these issues, take advice from around Wales and come up with a proposal that can be debated more widely. Eventually, the commission that is established will be able to make formal proposals to the assembly. I think it is best for us to await its conclusions.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister mentioned my constituency. Can he confirm that the commission will not be bound

solely by counting the population in each area, which would do a disservice to the process? As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) just said, in some areas, due to geographical factors, life is quite difficult and different from that in, for example, a valley area. I hope that the commission will have the widest possible remit to allow it to come up with the best possible answer.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it will have a wide remit. We would not want to make population a primary consideration, but obviously that can be considered alongside all the other issues that can make most sense out of where the boundaries of the Regional Committees should be.
I hope that the amendments—with the agreement of the Committee—can be withdrawn. Let us see what conclusions the advisory group reaches; then we can debate on them.

Mr. Livsey: I think that the Minister should know that, in parts of Wales, there is extremely strong feeling on the subject of Regional Committees. I understand that he is saying that the advisory group will devote time and effort to try to define the regions more satisfactorily than, for example, the Euro-constituencies are now defined.
I would not have welcomed the idea of the five regions in amendment No. 90 if I had known that that meant the Euro-constituencies because, as has been said, the Wales Mid and West Euro-constituency has an extraordinary geography. It stretches from one end of Wales to the other, encompassing not only the western seaboard but mid-Wales and the eastern boundary with England. I know not how we got it, but it covers a vast area of Wales.
Especially among the agriculture community, given recent events, people are aware of the benefits of a Welsh assembly. They believe that, if the Regional Committees of the assembly represent an area that means something to them, the assembly may have the germs of some of the solutions that are needed to tackle the huge economic problems of the agriculture community. They believe that, in those circumstances, the assembly may ensure the maintenance of the structure of farms and the farming community and that resources to the agriculture community will not be reduced if there is a transfer of resources from production support to environmental schemes, for example. People want those matters to be debated in the Welsh assembly.
People in some parts of Wales also want the Regional Committees of a Welsh assembly to allay the fears that a south Wales-based assembly would take away some decision-making powers from them; their fear that they cannot contribute adequately to the efficient and effective running of their region within Wales; and their fear that they cannot contribute as well as they might to the running of a Welsh assembly. The assembly must be a sensitive body because of the great variety of regions in Wales, it is very important that people feel included in the process.
I believe that people will be persuaded that they are included in the process if they are given genuinely meaningful Regional Committees within the assembly and if those Committees can take decisions in the region instead of in the assembly building, far away. They need


to be connected to the assembly. We believe that to be extremely important and I believe that I would let down people in some parts of Wales if I did not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 16A, in page 30, line 40, after 'region', insert
'and carry out any of the functions which the Assembly has delegated to the regional committees following a majority vote of Assembly members.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 67, in page 31, line 14, at end insert—
'(7) Each regional committee shall hold regular meetings at a location in the region which the committee represents.'.

Mr. Livsey: Amendment No. 16A is the amendment that refers to the meetings of the Regional Committees within the regions of the assembly. I made that point—I beg your pardon, Mr. Martin—in my summing-up just now, and I should have made it as a separate proposal that meetings take place in a region.

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have debated clause 62, providing for the establishment of Regional Committees in all parts of Wales, and it might be said that amendments Nos. 16A and 67 try to provide a little icing on the cake.
Amendment No. 67, the principle of which we have no problem with, is unnecessary. Again, I ask the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) to imagine the members of the Regional Committee not opting to hold regular Committee meetings in their region. Of course, there may be times when they will want to hold a meeting at the assembly building, whether it is in Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham, Abercynon, or even Bridgend. I believe that Bridgend has proposed five sites. There are plenty of places where the assembly may meet, and the Regional Committees of the assembly may, because of pressing and urgent business, want to hold a meeting there from time to time. However, we believe that the Regional Committees will want to meet in their regions, and that there is no need to specify that in the Bill.
Amendment No. 16A provides for Regional Committees to have executive functions. That clearly goes beyond the advisory and representational responsibilities that we envisage for those bodies and which were envisaged in the White Paper. Local government will have its own functions and decision making at the local level. The National Assembly for Wales is a strategic body looking at the whole of Wales. The Regional Committees are designed to enable the regions to feed back specific advice to the Welsh assembly when it makes its decisions.
We invite the Committee to reject amendment No. 16A, because it goes beyond what was envisaged in the White Paper, and to reject amendment No. 67, because we believe that all the Regional Committees will want to meet regularly in their regions anyway, so there is no need to specify that in the Bill.

9 pm

Mr. Livsey: We thought that the functions of the Committees should be stronger in the regions. The Minister dealt with that in his response. Perhaps there

should have been more emphasis on the matter in the Bill, but I accept what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 400, in page 30, line 40, at end insert—
'(2A) A committee established under this section may nominate persons for membership of any non—departmental public body mentioned in Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 and of which the responsibilities lie wholly or partly within the geographical area covered by the committee.'.
We are somewhat concerned about the role of the regional dimension in Wales. If we are to fill what is perceived as a partial vacuum in regional terms, we believe that assembly Members should have a specific, constructive and reasonably full job to do in their regions, as well as in Wales as a whole.
The rationale behind the establishment of the assembly comes in part from the problem of dealing with the quangos. We heard about that in earlier debates today. That is undoubtedly an important aspect of the role that the people of Wales see for the assembly. Some quangos can be abolished entirely, as is the case with Tai Cymru if it is to be subsumed into the assembly. Others, such as the Arts Council, may remain at arm's length.
There remains the question of how we are to deal with the lack of democracy in some of the regional quangos. That does not seem to be addressed in the Bill as drafted. Let us consider, for example, the health service in Wales and the health trusts. Either we should move forward, as we would like, to make the health service fully democratically answerable within its area, but that lies way beyond the scope of the Bill; or at the very least, there ought to be a specific attempt to ensure some democratic input into the health service, not just on the all-Wales level, but in bodies such as the North Wales health authority and health authorities for other parts of Wales, if they are to continue to exist.
A few months ago, in the autumn, I attended a public meeting that takes place once a year of the community health trust in my area. There were eight members of the trust, four with specialist knowledge from the health service, and four lay people who had been made quango members of the trust. I am certain that the vast majority of my constituents had not the remotest clue who those members were. I have no doubt that the trust members were doing an honourable job according to their lights, and that they were asking questions at the appropriate time, but there was no direct access from the electorate to the members of the trust. The electorate could get at officers, of course, but not at people who were supposed to be there as the long stop on behalf of the public.
Given that in north-west Wales there will be four assembly
Members,it seemed Obvious that if those four slots were available,they could go to their elected assembly Member
And take up matters that could be followed through in the meeting of the trust. Equally,one could appoint Members to the health authority for the whole of north Wales.
I realise that Minister have considered the matter and decided that there may be some difficulty with regard to the health authority being answerable to the assembly


centrally. I recognise that answerability, but there is also a day-to-day answerability for the detailed functions in the area itself—the sort of problems that we encounter in our constituency surgeries, such as difficulties in getting a booking for time in the hospital, or difficulties with the services provided by a trust. Those could be answered on a local level, with no need to go to the all-Wales level.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to be sure that I understand the construction that I should put on the wording of the amendment. Is the right hon. Gentleman in effect saying that the Regional Committee of elected Members shall form the non-executive directors of the trust or the health authority, or is he saying that they shall offer people for nomination whom they know well and who can therefore be seen to be indirectly accountable to them? There is a crucial difference between the two.

Mr. Wigley: We had explored the possibility of the Committee taking over that role, but that would entail a major change to primary health legislation. I can see arguments for that, but, if we are going that far, we should democratise the entire structure of health care in a different way from that for which the Bill provides.
Our idea was that nominations should come from among elected Members. I realise that there may be a deficiency in the wording of the amendment in that respect. The present nomination process is rather vague. I do not know how it will continue, once the assembly has come into existence. The regional body should be responsible for that, and the elected Members should go through to provide at least some elected link to public bodies.
The proposal may not be necessary or appropriate for many of the bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4. They may not have a dimension into which elected Members would easily fit. Nevertheless, some of those bodies do operate on a regional basis in Wales; one thinks of the Welsh Development Agency—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Or the TECs.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, although they are not listed in the schedules. Perhaps the Bill could be amended later to include them. In any case, there must be better accountability at the regional level, as well as better democracy for the whole of Wales.
The Minister may reply to the debate by saying that the power we seek already exists. If so, well and good. If, however, the Minister says that this is not regarded as a suitable job for the regional bodies set up under the assembly, how will some democratic legitimacy be achieved?

Mr. Win Griffiths: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), I am still not quite sure whether the amendment is intended to enable members of the Regional Committees to nominate representatives from among themselves to health authorities, trusts and other regional quangos; or whether it is intended that they should nominate other people who they feel are particularly suited to the jobs.

Mr. Wigley: The amendment is intended to cover a range of circumstances under schedules 3 and 4.
We certainly hoped for nominations to the health trusts and TECs from among the elected regional Members themselves. Schedules 3 and 4, however, contain quite a mixture of bodies on which there may be a slot for only one person with specialist knowledge from a particular region of Wales to serve as a member—possibly a United Kingdom body. Some semblance of answerability to an elected regional body would, in our view, produce better democratic links.
The purpose of the amendment was to allow elected Members of the regional body to take over at least some responsibility and to be a conduit for public accountability on those bodies. The regional bodies could put forward the names of specialists to serve on some of the specialist bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4. Therefore, the amendment covers both options.
Perhaps the Government have a different vision of how the plethora of quangos in schedules 3 and 4 can be more responsive to the regions. If so, I shall be glad to hear about it. I hope that the amendment may tease out of the Government how they see things developing.

Dr. Marek: I would advise the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to be cautious. We should try to avoid amendments that would make the Bill even more detailed or intricate, thus trammelling the assembly even more. I should prefer a Bill more along the lines of the Scotland Bill, with its permissive powers. That is not what we have; we have another style of Bill. As it is, we are creating a fairly tight-fitting corset for the assembly, and it would be wrong to make it any tighter—

Mr. Wigley: I, too, would prefer the broad-brush approach of the Scotland Bill, but the wording in the amendment is "may nominate". There is no specific responsibility to do so. We are trying to remove an uncertainty that would otherwise exist.

Dr. Marek: I accept that. Secondly, we do not want the assembly—perish the thought—to be a local council, in which one councillor says, "I don't want you interfering in the planning decision on my agricultural bungalow; and in return, I won't mess with your patch." We must not allow that to happen. If we allow Regional Committees to decide these issues, we may descend—this is the danger—into a glorified county council.
This will be the National Assembly for Wales. Decisions must be taken by the assembly. A possible halfway house would allow the Regional Committees to suggest names and the assembly to nominate on the advice of the Regional Committees. I would not object to that, but ultimately the appointments must be for the assembly.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am pleased that we have had a short debate on the amendment. When it began, I thought that I knew what the purpose of the amendment was, but, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke, I began to entertain one or two doubts.
The amendment would give the Regional Committees nomination rights in respect of public appointments to quangos. I had thought that the amendment's intention—the right hon. Gentleman agreed that it could be so understood—was to give the Regional Committee the right to nominate people to serve on the quangos


listed in schedules 3 and 4 and on regional or local quangos, such as health authorities and trusts. In that context, the amendment is unnecessary. Anyone can nominate a person for a non-departmental public body in Wales. The post may be advertised, and there is a proper procedure to ensure that the people with the best experience and qualifications are appointed. The Regional Committee will be able to nominate people who, although not elected Members of the assembly, are felt to be particularly suitable either as representatives of north Wales on quangos that operate solely within north Wales, or as the voice of north Wales on a national quango. That will happen without the amendment.
9.15 pm
I come to the idea that members of the Regional Committee could decide that, to increase democratic accountability, one of their number should serve on a quango. For example, someone who had previously worked as a GP in the health service might be thought suitable to be a member of a trust or health authority. Unfortunately, those non-executive directorships will be regarded—according to the rules that also currently apply to Members of this House—as offices of profit under the Crown, and such people will not be eligible to serve on the health authority or trust.
The issue is being reviewed in the context of the National Assembly for Wales. We are still considering disqualification and the posts for which elected Members of the assembly may be eligible. Given that, and because, under current legislation, Members of the Assembly will be disqualified from being members of health authorities and trusts anyway, I hope that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wigley: I shall respond briefly. I was intrigued by the way in which the mists of incomprehension surrounded the amendment when I spoke earlier. I hope that I do not always have that effect.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Obviously, I accept that anyone can make a nomination under the procedures, but the intention of the amendment was to go further. I noted that the Minister said that elected Members of the Assembly would not be able to serve on such bodies unless disqualification rules were changed. He said that the Government were considering that, and I hope that the change can be made, so that flexibility can be built into the procedures. In one way or another, quangos need to have greater local accountability.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was worried that Members of the Assembly would become involved in local government matters. That is the last thing that I want. There may be a way in which some of those bodies can be democratised through local government, but that is not proposed in the Bill. As I understand it, the regional quangos will remain after the assembly is up and running; the Bill contains nothing to democratise them.

Mr. Win Griffiths: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the health trusts are currently being re-examined and there are likely to be fewer when that process is

completed. He must recognise also that the creation of a National Assembly, with far greater scope to scrutinise the quangos that exist in Wales, will herald a new era of democratic accountability.

Mr. Wigley: I accept that entirely on an all-Wales level. I hope that many quangos will be abolished and I hope that there will be much better scrutiny of those quangos that remain, as well as better accountability on an all-Wales level. I do not dispute that point.
However, my question relates to regional Wales. The trusts are being reviewed at the moment, but unless the Minister foresees an all-Wales acute trust and an all-Wales community trust—heaven forbid, that would be centralisation rather than decentralisation—there will be some regional bodies. There may be a different configuration, but regional bodies will continue to exist in Wales. As far as I know, the brief given to the health authorities undertaking the review does not include the question of how they may be made more democratically accountable.
We have a solution on the all-Wales level, and no doubt there will be a role for local authorities at the local level. However, on the regional level—which the Bill recognises the necessity of addressing by creating regional bodies in Wales comprising elected assembly members—the legislation is afraid to allow elected Members to be involved in creating a democratic mechanism for regional quangos.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I said earlier that we were still examining issues relating to disqualification that currently prevent Members of the Assembly from playing any role whatsoever. We accept that there is a need to strengthen democratic accountability. That may be achieved by moving from the position whereby the Welsh Office, with the Secretary of State and two Ministers, has responsibility for all those matters, to the point where a democratically elected 60-Member assembly assumes that responsibility. That will enable the assembly to scrutinise those bodies more closely. I suggest also that Regional Committees will be able to examine what is happening in their regions and make recommendations and provide advice upon which the National Assembly may act appropriately.

Mr. Wigley: We are now starting to tease out some of the responses that I had hoped for. In other words, the Minister is beginning to understand our assertion that elected assembly Members can play a legitimate role regionally in order to keep an eye on regional quangos.
The Minister said that the Government are still considering how the process will work and are willing to contemplate changing the disqualification rules to allow freedom of action. In that way, the assembly may be able to move down the road in a manner that it deems to be appropriate. I want to ensure that that course of action is not ruled out. We must consider the legitimate question of regional democracy in Wales. Members of the Assembly may be able to contribute to improving


answerability and scrutiny of regional quangos. That point has been made. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak during the stand part debate because clause 62 goes much wider than the amendments that we have discussed so far. Indeed, the clause is central to the success of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) moved an amendment regarding the number of regions, and I congratulate him on his maiden voyage from the Opposition Front Bench. I assure him that it is a compliment to be savaged by the Minister—the only person I know who can waffle while reading an official brief.
In all seriousness, we are unhappy with the clause as it stands and with Regional Committees as they are proposed. We made that clear in the aftermath of the referendum and implied it in our reasoned amendment. The problem must be addressed if we are not to create yet another democratic deficit that, in the long term, could undermine the success of the assembly.
The Minister said that the proposal for north Wales was to make the Committees full players. I am not sure what definition he gives to "players". The clause merely creates Advisory Committees, which are hardly players in other than the most remote sense. We are faced with a sop to the real concerns expressed by the people of Wales in the divided result of the referendum vote.
The Regional Committees will be unable to initiate anything. They will have no ability to oppose or veto anything and they will have no Executive authority. Under any definition of talking shops, those Regional Committees would be included. Only the directly elected Members in the region are guaranteed a place on them. The rest will be elected by the assembly, so the geographical or numerical majority in the assembly could effectively dictate who else gets on the Regional Committees. If there are no directly elected Members for any parties in Wales, it could be decided that those parties could have no representation on the Committees. That is the dangerous power that the clause will create.
There is no protection against permanent geographical discrimination. The clause is purely cosmetic. It creates a democratic deficit that, if not addressed, will cause problems. I regret that my amendment No. 300 was so technically deficient that it could not be selected for debate. That was entirely my fault. I shall try to adjust it so that it can be retabled on Report, when I hope that it may be selected. The amendment covers one of the areas that we have been discussing—our desire to see a representative of each of the Regional Committees on the Executive Committee as a full member who has been mandated by his or her regional peers to represent the interests of the regions in the centre of what will be the decision-making process.
I know that this will be somewhat uncomfortable for those who see the proposed Executive Committee as a cosy arrangement. However, in terms of giving a real voice to the regions of Wales, I think that we are making an important suggestion, and I hope that we can return to it. It would give a greater power to the Regional Committees than just the responsibility of providing advice.
On the day after the referendum, the Prime Minister said in Downing street that the Government would take on board the fears expressed in the vote. There is no doubt that that vote was regionalised. A Labour Member said earlier in our consideration of the Bill, rather significantly, that the effect of the vote had been to move Offa's dyke westward. Against that background, we looked for change in the clause as against the White Paper, to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise that some means would be produced of addressing the fears that had been expressed in the referendum vote. However, there is nothing new to be found in the clause. Indeed, there is nothing in the clause that can offer any comfort.
We feel that there should be greater regional protection even than that which would be achieved by putting a member of each Regional Committee on to the Executive Committee. I should like to see regional powers of veto over certain decisions where demographic and geographic majorities can hold a perpetual sway in the absence of such a veto. We shall seek to introduce such a veto and such a power in a new clause, if it is selected.
In the absence of any of the arrangements that I have outlined, the clause represents a deceit on the people of Wales. It promises much, but in practice it will achieve almost nothing. The issue is central to all that we have been saying since the referendum. It is a matter to which we shall wish to return both in the House of Commons and, if necessary, in another place.

Mr. Livsey: I cannot agree with much that was said by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Many of his remarks were divisive. None the less, I am sure that the Minister will take on board the concerns that have been expressed about the importance of the regions within Wales. I am sure also that he and the Secretary of State will ensure that the Advisory Committee that is considering those matters will take the concerns on board and produce something meaningful within the regions of Wales so that true devolution can take place.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I should not have been surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who poured scorn on the idea of the Government accepting advice, just as the Conservative Government regularly scorned advice, with the result that there were disasters such as the poll tax. The point about the Regional Committees and their advisory role is that we believe in listening to people and in being able to accept advice when it is well targeted. We have made provision in clause 62 for Advisory Committees because we believe that, on balance, we shall get good advice from them. I can understand why a Conservative might regard the role of an Advisory Committee as deceiving the people in Wales, because in a Tory context it would. The Tory Government never listened to the advice that they were given. That is the only context in which the right hon. Gentleman's words can have any meaning.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the Minister will define what he means by a "real player"—the words that he used earlier about the northern Regional Committee. He obviously listens to advice, but how many amendments has he accepted during the passage of the Bill—not just from me, because I understand that he probably does not want to accept amendments from me, but from his right hon. and hon. Friends, and from other hon. Members? From that, we shall learn whether he takes advice.

Mr. Griffiths: It is most apt that the right hon. Gentleman should have made those remarks this evening, when, in earlier debates, we have said that we want to listen. I pointed out that he had made constructive comments in the debate on amendments and that we wanted to examine ways in which we could, perhaps, take on board some of those ideas. I am quite sure that, at the end of the Committee's proceedings, we shall have accepted a number of amendments, or the ideas contained in them.
We believe that the Regional Committees will give Members of the Assembly the opportunity to focus on their areas and to give advice to the assembly to develop national strategies in Wales that take account of regional sensibilities. I know that taking account of sensibilities was not a strong point of the Conservatives when in government. I am afraid that I cannot scorn the concept of receiving advice in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government did when in office. I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to be added to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

WIDENING OF REGULATORY APPRAISALS

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 412, in page 31, line 23, leave out 'likely', and insert 'financial, social and environmental'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 413, in page 31, line 36, after 'business', insert 'and other organisations'.

Mr. Dafis: Amendment No. 412 relates to costs and benefits. Amendment No. 413 relates to organisations that are concerned with social and environmental issues, rather than confining it to business organisations.
I take it that integrating sustainable development—again that phrase, which means integrating environmental and social equity considerations into all areas of policy—will be a central theme of the National Assembly, as indeed the Government claim it to be their central theme.
The assembly will come into existence at a time when sustainable development, environmental sustainability, will be rising to the top of the agenda—there is not much doubt about that—globally and at the European and United Kingdom levels. It is important that the same

should happen at national level. It is already beginning to happen at local level, through the local Agenda 21 process. We may have an opportunity to debate the whole issue of sustainable development more comprehensively when we reach part VI, which concerns the new development agency.
Let me establish straight away that, when we speak of costs and benefits and cost-benefit analysis, we are not just talking in traditional economic terms. I hope that we are talking not merely about financial costs and benefits, but about social and environmental costs and benefits, which are a key component of sustainable development. As it stands, clause 64 seems to refer only to financial and, in the traditional sense of the word, economic costs and benefits. If I am right about that, it is old-fashioned thinking—old-style COBA. That is inappropriate in this day and age: nowadays it is wrong to separate financial considerations from those that are environmental and social. We cannot erode our environmental capital, or indeed our social assets, without imperilling economic welfare.
The amendments make it explicit that any regulatory appraisal and study of cost compliance must be comprehensive in the way that I have outlined. The outcome of an appraisal of that kind could be significantly different from the outcome of the narrow appraisal provided for by clause 64 as it stands.
I do not wish to say any more now, as there will be further opportunities. The amendment is tabled in the same spirit as amendments Nos. 401 and 402 on the Environmental Audit Committee, to which the Minister responded positively. I trust that the amendments will receive a similar response, enabling the assembly to benefit from an up-to-date response to policy.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 64 is a significant and radical innovation in itself. It builds on the non-statutory compliance cost assessments that have been part of Government practice for some time when new laws or regulations are to be introduced. It is vital for the assembly to create an economic environment in Wales that promotes healthy and sustainable economic growth, and a more widespread prosperity than Wales has enjoyed in the past. That means an economic policy that respects the environment, and recognises that there is economic as well as social benefit in conserving the beauty and ecological diversity of Wales. It means a policy that works actively to bring greater prosperity to our more socially deprived communities.
All those will overwhelmingly be matters for the policy of the assembly. In the Bill, we aim to create the framework, and, in doing so, we must be careful not to build in procedures that risk becoming excessively bureaucratic. If we attempt to legislate for procedures that try to constrain the assembly's policies, we multiply the opportunities for legal challenges on procedural grounds; we also risk entrenching the status quo, while warring interest groups battle for control of the assembly's procedures as a way of controlling its policies.
We are not opposed to a procedural framework that lays some basic duties on the assembly. Hence, the Bill refers to local government, to regulatory appraisals and to the voluntary sector. We are also committed to tabling an amendment that recognises the importance of the principle of sustainable development.
Having said that, the Government cannot accept the amendments, because they would broaden the scope of the regulatory appraisal beyond the specific aspect of the costs that may be added to business. We believe that a social, environmental and financial appraisal of all secondary legislation is not necessary in the context of the clause. The consultation process should only include business.
It is important for the assembly to consider the financial costs that will be laid on business as a result of regulations that it introduces. If there are serious costs, it is right that representatives of business should be consulted.
Placing additional legal constraints on the assembly is going too far. As a democratic body, the assembly will be free to develop its own policies. It will have to account for its success or failure to the people of Wales when the time comes to be re-elected. Its processes will be much more public and open than we have been used to. That, and not more complex statutory provision, however well intentioned, is the best way to ensure that the assembly has proper regard for the social and environmental consequences of its actions.
I ask the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) to take account of the fact that we shall table an amendment on sustainable development, which will deal with the concerns that he has expressed. He wants to bolt the provisions in the amendments on to the clause, but it has a specific purpose, so that is not the most appropriate way to achieve his objectives.

Mr. Dafis: I am not altogether convinced by the Minister's response. I am glad to hear that the Government intend to table an amendment on sustainable development. It should be worded carefully, and should impose a duty on the assembly to have regard to sustainable development in the formation of its policies: it should not merely have to consider sustainability. It is important to put this issue at the heart of the assembly's activities.
The Minister said that it is not appropriate to broaden the consultation process. I believe that it should be broadened, because organisations concerned with the social and environmental impact should be given parity of esteem with business interests.
Environmental and social appraisals will increasingly be part of policy development. Environmental sustainability issues will be brought into accounting systems. They will be brought to the heart of the way in which the effects of policies are measured. The time is coming when cost compliance and cost-benefit analysis will have to be brought into such matters. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote, but I look forward to a more thorough debate at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 31, leave out lines 27 to 30.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 307, in clause 67, page 33, leave out lines 21 to 24.

Mr. Jenkin: Clause 64 applies the equivalent of a compliance cost assessment to draft subordinate

legislation that is being considered by the assembly and it requires the executive committee to carry out such an assessment. Clause 67(2), to which our amendment No. 307 refers, requires the equivalent of a money resolution. Clause 64(2) can set aside the provision for a regulatory appraisal
if in the particular circumstances it is inappropriate".
The words used in clause 67(2) are, "may contain an exception". Is it appropriate for Parliament to suggest that those laudable procedures, which we endeavour to apply, should be set aside?

Dr. Marek: Surely the provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are de minimis. Is the hon. Gentleman serious in suggesting that they should be deleted from the Bill? Amendment No. 307 proposes to delete a reference to small sums but for good and efficient administration that reference ought to remain in the Bill. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a vote because it would damage the Bill.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that votes are not two a penny in our deliberations. These are probing amendments. Our procedures do not allow primary legislation that would be a charge on the Exchequer to proceed without a money resolution, and we do not think that the assembly should be able to set aside analogous procedures because it considers that convenient. It may find that the subordinate legislation which it expected to have minimal cost is expensive. Unless the matter is examined or debated, depending on the assembly's standing orders, there should be a procedure to guard against the setting aside of such procedures.
Perhaps like the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who moved amendment No. 412, I shall be told by the Government that my amendment is a good one and they will ask me to withdraw it, assuring me that they will table an amendment. That would enable them to say that it was their idea in the first place.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend has rightly described this as a probing amendment. Perhaps I could use it to probe the Minister on the following chain of logic. It may be false and it would be reassuring to hear that it is. My query arises in relation to the specific issue of regulatory appraisals and more generally to clauses 64, 65 and 67.
The Minister has told us that clause 65(2) in particular limits the nightmare vision of Secretaries and the First Secretary legislating. The Minister has also admitted that that does not prevent the First Secretary and Secretaries from undercutting the need to legislate by using the power of the purse and the method of the circular to achieve results that would otherwise have been achieved by subordinate legislation.
Nevertheless, I and other Opposition Members have to accept that there is a difference between that indirect method of crypto-legislation and genuine subordinate legislation by order or regulation. Therefore, the extent to which the following logic applies is important. Is it true that, in the light of clause 64(2), which amendment No. 303 would remove, and of the phrasing of clause 65(2), which refers to "a resolution" but not necessarily to an affirmative resolution, it would be possible for the


First Secretary or the Secretary concerned to bring forward subordinate legislation without regulatory appraisal, to put it before the assembly only in the sense of asking it not to make a negative resolution, and then to carry that proposition into law through subordinate legislation, which, as a result of there not having been a negative resolution prayed, would never have been debated in the assembly?
That is extremely material because, if there is neither a regulatory appraisal nor a debate, but merely legislation that is prepared and, by that means, so to speak, invisibly enacted by the First Secretary and the Secretaries, we indeed have the prospect of a devolution of power upwards to those persons. They will be able to run an unaccountable legislature in the full sense, with merely the theory of accountability.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 64 requires that the assembly Standing Orders must contain provision for regulatory appraisals, as we have just debated, and that those must be undertaken before the subordinate legislation is made. The purpose of the appraisals will be to assess the costs and the benefits, particularly as they affect business.
Clause 64(2) provides that, in particular cases, the requirements for a regulatory appraisal can be dispensed with if it would be inappropriate or if it were not reasonably practical to have one. Amendment No. 303 proposes that clause 64(2) be removed so that there should be regulatory appraisal in respect of every proposed order.
I am surprised that the amendment has been proposed because it would subject the assembly to stricter rules than are currently applied in Whitehall. It would involve assembly staff in unnecessary administrative work and take up the assembly's time with examining unnecessary reports.
For example, under the arrangements that exist for Whitehall and Westminster, regulatory appraisals are not required for a range of subordinate legislation: those whose sole impact is on the public sector; regulations that increase a statutory fee by a predetermined formula; changes to the existing regulatory regime that do not impose additional costs or savings on business, charities or voluntary organisations.

Mr. Jenkin: Would it not have been helpful to have set out those exemptions in the Bill, so that the assembly could be clear about Parliament's intention, instead of having to divine it from the words that the Minister is now uttering?

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps we had unfairly assumed that the workings of Whitehall in these matters were fairly familiar and that we did not need to prescribe step by step. These exemptions are not found specifically in primary legislation. Similar exemptions are prescribed in secondary legislation.

Mr. Ron Davies: The constitutional age for beginners. It is in the book.

Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State is now getting excited from a sedentary position. The point is that it is assembly Members who will have to understand this legislation and how this is going to work. It is clear what

the Government's intention now is, and it should have been spelt out in the Bill. That would have been much clearer. What is the objection to that? There will be many beginners in the assembly, as the Secretary of State refers to them.

Mr. Griffiths: Those beginners will be provided with all the briefing and background to those matters when they become Members of the Assembly. If we were to prescribe in detail every little piece of legislation in Westminster and Whitehall that will be applied in principle to the assembly, the Bill would be a thousand times longer.
I am pleased to have brought some enlightenment to the Committee's proceedings. If the amendment were accepted, a situation could easily arise in which a regulatory appraisal of identical subordinate legislation was considered unnecessary in England but had to be carried out in Wales.

Mr. Letwin: Who is to be the judge of inappropriateness? If it is to be the assembly, is there any guarantee that it will take the view that the Minister has espoused? Could not the assembly decide that all regulatory appraisal was inappropriate?

Mr. Griffiths: The assembly could not decide that. Some matters are in primary legislation; I shall give the hon. Gentleman a few more examples. Under the present arrangements at Whitehall, a regulatory appraisal is not required for road closure orders or for regulations that amend an existing regulatory regime without imposing any additional costs or savings on business, and so on. All those matters are in secondary legislation.
The assembly will not be able to go beyond the constraints that currently apply under legislation enacted at Westminster. It will not be able to say, "We are going to make an exception." The primary legislation will not allow that to happen.

Mr. Letwin: Perhaps we are making progress, although I now no longer understand subsections (1) and (2) of the clause. The Minister's line of reasoning seems to be that if, under primary legislation, there is a requirement for regulatory appraisal when the Secretary of State lays an order, that will apply automatically to the assembly. So why on earth are subsections (1) and (2) in the Bill? Why would there be a need to legislate for such procedures that are contained in subsection (1) if they already exist in statute?

Mr. Griffiths: The powers are being transferred to the assembly. Under primary legislation, Parliament does not have the power to dispense with regulatory appraisal of everything; it is specified in legislation. In that same way, the assembly's powers will be specified in legislation. The legislation that applies to Westminster and Whitehall will be the same legislation that will apply to the assembly. It will not be able to move outside exactly the same constraints as apply at Westminster and Whitehall.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give us an assurance that no secondary legislation that does not have the appropriate regulatory constraints applied to it will be delegated to the assembly?

Mr. Griffiths: Further advice has come my way. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked whether the assembly could decide not to have any regulatory appraisals at all. The answer is no, it could not adopt an all-embracing policy to set such matters to one side. Primary legislation governs what the assembly will be able to do, just as primary legislation governs what this Parliament is able to do.

Mr. John Hayes: Now that we are clear on what the assembly cannot do, will the Minister explain why there is no difference between the clauses and no discretion is provided? That is the point that he has not dealt with. He has dealt with what the assembly cannot do, but he has not said why the clauses are in the Bill, given the complete lack of discretion that they provide.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate, he would have heard me say that the Government have included in the Bill a framework for regulatory appraisal, which will make the process much clearer in the National Assembly for Wales. As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, it is based—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 65 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

INTEGRITY

Amendment made: No. 282, in page 35, line 18, at end insert
'fails to comply with or'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

POWER TO REQUIRE ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Amendment made: No. 283, in page 36, line 26, leave out 'either'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 74

WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 390, in page 36, line 41, after 'concerned,' insert

'or such other person as may be authorised by the standing orders'.

No. 391, in page 36, line 42, at end insert
'and may administer the oath (or affirmation) to him.'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

DEFAMATION

Amendment made: No. 284, in page 38, line 8, at end insert
'and shall be treated as if it were a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of paragraph 11(1)(c) of that Schedule (report of proceedings of person appointed by a Minister etc. for the purposes of an inquiry).'.— [Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 77 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on any Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government Finance not later than Ten o'clock.[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mrs. Anne McGuire and Ms Hazel Blears be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. Jim Dobbin and Mrs. Rosemary McKenna be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEE ON MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Huw Edwards be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. David Drew be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Fiona Mactaggart be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Helen Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Alan Johnson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Ms Margaret Moran be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen Hesford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Big Cats (Norfolk)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Keith Simpson: I must begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for attending this Adjournment debate on the subject of big cats in Norfolk. My objective in asking for the debate was to establish ministerial responsibility for monitoring big cats and to consider how we can best evaluate any evidence of the probability of big cats living in our countryside. This is a subject which, as hon. Members may know, has excited a great deal of public and media interest, especially in my constituency of Mid-Norfolk.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a steady increase in the number of sightings of big cats in many parts of the United Kingdom. These are often described as pumas, leopards or panthers. A survey carried out in 1996 claimed sightings of big cats in 34 English counties, so Norfolk's big cat has to compete with, among others, the Fen tiger, the beast of Bodmin, the Durham puma, the Nottingham lion and the cougar of Cupar. I must say that many of these sound like the nicknames of hon. Members.
Norfolk has had its fair share of sightings of big cats. Last year, Norfolk police received reports of 54 sightings of big cats from July to December, and they still receive, on average, reports of two sightings a week. In my constituency, there have been reported sightings at Dereham, Beetley, Lenwade and Crostwick, to name just a few places.
I must commend the Norfolk police who have consistently taken sightings of big cats seriously and who have attempted to monitor them. There are 36 volunteer police officers trained as wildlife liaison officers who participate in this monitoring. I must also commend two of my local newspapers—the Eastern Daily Press and the Evening News—which have taken a responsible attitude to the sightings and have genuinely sought to inform public opinion.
Many sightings have been reported in my constituency by members of the public who were out walking their dogs or driving down country roads, often at dawn or at dusk. Usually the sighting is of a big cat, frequently described as a puma or leopard. There have also been a number of incidents in which it has been claimed that ewes, lambs and horses have been attacked—and, in some cases, killed—and have received injuries more extensive than could have been inflicted by dogs or foxes. Of course, the fact remains that, despite many sightings and some superficial evidence, we do not yet have authoritative evidence that big cats are at large in Mid-Norfolk or, for that matter, in other parts of the UK.
How should we regard the sightings of big cats in Mid-Norfolk? It could be merely an extension of folklore going back to the 18th century. Perhaps Old Shuck or Black Shuck, the mythical large dog which roamed our Norfolk landscape looking for his master all those years ago, has returned to haunt his descendants—perhaps, but unlikely. Perhaps it is merely a question of farmers looking for compensation on a scale the likes of which they have never seen—perhaps, but unlikely. Perhaps our thriving tourist industry in Mid-Norfolk is looking for its


equivalent of the Loch Ness monster or the hound of the Baskervilles to attract even more tourists—perhaps, but unlikely.
Some reports are undoubtedly hoaxes. At least one recent sighting reported to the police suggested that the large cats had been brought down by the Martians, and there is always a suspicion that a few sightings may be the consequences of late-night spiritual imbibing. However, the overwhelming majority of sightings of big cats, not only in my constituency but elsewhere in the UK, have been reported by perfectly normal, rational members of the public.
I suspect that many people have not reported sightings on the ground that they would be considered eccentric, to say the least. Even if one accepts that in the majority of cases, people have genuinely mistaken large domestic cats, dogs or foxes for big cats, there is still an element of probability that, at least in some cases, there may be a big cat explanation.
A number of distinguished wildlife experts have suggested that some pumas or leopards could have been released into the countryside when the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 made it illegal to own such animals without a licence. They would have been able to roam over a wide area of countryside, live off wild or domestic animals and possibly breed. I realise that this case is not directly comparable, but I am old enough to remember as a child in Norfolk the spread of the coypu 40 years ago as a consequence of several escaping from captivity and breeding in the wild on such a scale that they threatened to destroy our river banks.
So what is to be done? How do we best establish a rational method, at national and local levels, to monitor the sightings of big cats and to evaluate the evidence scientifically? Last year, I attempted to establish ministerial responsibility and learnt from a written answer that
The Home Office has no responsibility for monitoring the sightings of big cats'—[Official Report, 1 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 49.]
In practice, monitoring is done very conscientiously at local level by the police. A similar question to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced the following reply from the Minister:
A number of Departments have responsibilities in relation to 'big cats'. This Department is concerned with the safety of livestock, the Home Office for the safety of people and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the legal keeping of such animals by, for example, zoos and circuses. These Departments co-ordinate their actions according to the circumstances of the case."—[Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 149.]
Many of us, in one way or another, are old Whitehall warriors, and that final sentence gave it away. There is obviously a certain element of pass the parcel.
I realise that the Minister is here to reply to an Adjournment debate on big cats in Mid-Norfolk as the matter relates to the safety of livestock. In the past, his Department has been involved in evaluating evidence of big cats. One case involved the so-called "Beast of Bodmin" when his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), asked the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to investigate the carcases of dead farm animals and a

number of photos and videos allegedly showing big cats. The conclusion of the study proved that the farm animals had been victims of large dogs and the photographic evidence proved the cats to be domestic. I understand that the Minister has promised another investigation into big cats in the west country, where local public opinion is somewhat sceptical about the evidence.
I should like to suggest two positive measures for the Minister to consider. At national and local levels, it is logical that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be the lead Government Department for co-ordinating the monitoring and evaluation of evidence concerning big cats. In Norfolk, a proper scientific evaluation of evidence—particularly footprints, droppings or carcases of dead farm or domestic animals—could be undertaken using DNA tests at the Food Science Laboratory at Norwich. That would enable us to distinguish between fact and fiction. The facility should be widely publicised locally, so that if farm or domestic animals are savagely attacked or killed, they can be examined scientifically. If the Minister is responsive to my proposals and they are implemented, we would be nearer proving or disproving the weighty question of whether there are big cats at large in Mid-Norfolk.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I should like to make one or two brief points in support of what my hon. Friend has said. In my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Can the hon. Gentleman satisfy me that he has received the agreement of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and the Minister before making an intervention?

Mr. Robertson: I apologise. I have not spoken to the Minister about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These Adjournment debates are intended for the benefit of the Member proposing the subject. Another Member can intervene only by special arrangement. I do not know whether the Minister has any objection.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman making a brief contribution.

Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to the House.
I have been visited more than once by farmers in my area who have shown me photographic evidence of attacks on farm animals, which I do not believe could have been carried out by anything other than big cats. Lambs with their heads ripped completely off and fang marks of a width that no dog could produce are part of the evidence. One of the problems that farmers in my area have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not attempting to hound the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate about big cats in Mid-Norfolk. He must speak on that subject.

Mr. Robertson: I shall end by saying that it seems that the problem—this may well be the case in Mid-Norfolk —is that people are reluctant to seek publicity because of stories such as those about the beast of Bodmin.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I understand the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) has made. The possibility of one or more big cats living or breeding in the countryside is a serious issue. I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's extensive knowledge of the history of sightings of big cats. As he rightly said, many allegations and comments have been made for many years and none have been substantiated.
Many sightings have turned out to involve domestic cats. I remember that not many years ago London zoo was called out to deal with an escaped lioness in north London. It turned out to be a large ginger torn cat sunbathing on a wall. I own a fairly big cat. Fortunately, he finds it too much of an exertion to go far from my house, so he does not disturb the neighbours on his perambulations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the division of responsibility between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Home Office. The Ministry's main responsibility on big cats is confined to whether the presence of a big cat poses a threat to the safety of livestock. To make a rough and ready split, reports of big cats eating people would be a matter for the Home Office, whereas reports of big cats eating livestock are a matter for MAFF. That is a curious division of labour, but that is roughly how it is.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that where it is believed such a threat exists, MAFF will take action to investigate the case and evaluate any available evidence, as it has done in the past, particularly on the beast of Bodmin.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to use the proper title. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) referred to the beast of Bodmin. It is the beast of Bodmin moor. The worthy people of Bodmin take some exception to the incorrect description because the beast has never been seen in Bodmin.
I have a serious point about the division of responsibility and am concerned that perhaps no Minister will take responsibility. I hope that the Minister will follow the precedent established by his predecessor in response to my original request for an inquiry that MAFF be the lead Ministry on such issues. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has said, there have been no attacks on human beings, despite the many sightings, but there have been many attacks on livestock. I hope that the Minister recognises that his Ministry should have primary responsibility for investigating the beast of Bodmin moor in my part of the country and for dealing with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk.

Mr. Morley: I can confirm that. It is particularly so when the attacks involve livestock. As MAFF has facilities to investigate such reports and no other Department does, it is logical that it takes lead responsibility—and has done so with reports that it has received.
I am aware that there have been a number of alleged sightings of big cats in the Norfolk area. None has been reported to the Ministry so far, although I have noticed reports of them in the press. A major concern is the

potential threat to public safety, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said. First, it must be ascertained whether there is a likelihood of such a cat living in the wild. Each year, there are several hundred reports of sightings of big cats throughout the country. I am sure that hon. Members agree that, however well intentioned, the vast majority of reports are not genuine sightings of big cats.
The subject generates a great deal of media interest. A reported sighting in one area is often followed by a sudden flurry in the press of reported sightings in other areas. Although reports are often made with genuine sincerity, the Ministry has to be assured that there is a genuine case to investigate. Unfortunately, it is not unknown for practical jokers to be involved—such as the one who planted the skull of a leopard in a stream near Bodmin moor. I take the point of the hon. Member for North Cornwall that, although the beast of Bodmin moor may be a tourist attraction, the beast of Bodmin is not. It turned out that the skull was from a leopard skin rug and had been planted.
Despite such reports, the Ministry takes these matters seriously. There are a number of big cats in zoos, circuses and in private ownership and it is not impossible that some of them may have escaped or been illegally released into the wild. The security of big cats held in captivity is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The Ministry is aware that a total of 16 big cats have escaped into the wild since 1977. They include lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars and pumas, but all but two animals were at large for only one day.
I recall that at least three of the lions escaped from a circus in Grimsby. I remember it very well because one unfortunate person was quite badly savaged. He ran to the car in which his wife was sitting, but she was so terrified by the lions that she refused to open the door. I am quite sure that that was due to her fear and nothing to do with any acrimony between her and her husband.
Because there is a risk that big cats can escape into the wild and because of the threat that such animals could pose to livestock, the Ministry investigates each report in which it is alleged that livestock has been attacked. Reports to the Ministry are usually made by the farmers whose animals have been attacked. In addition, the Ministry takes note of articles in the press describing big cat incidents and will consider them if there is evidence that livestock are at risk.
Incidentally, of the 16 escaped large cats, the two that stayed at large for some time were a leopard and a puma. The leopard managed to avoid capture for seven days, after which it was cage trapped. The origin of the puma, which was captured near Inverness in 1980, is unclear, but it was quite tame and has subsequently been kept in a wildlife park. That sounds like a case of a semi-domesticated animal that was released into the wild.
On receipt of a report of a big cat, the Ministry will ask the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, the Ministry's wildlife advisers, to contact the person who reported the sighting. The FRCA will discuss the situation with the fanner and seek to establish whether the sighting is genuine and whether any evidence can be evaluated. It will follow up all cases where there is evidence of a big cat that can be corroborated and all cases where it is alleged that livestock are being taken.
The FRCA will consider all forms of evidence, including photographs given to it by members of the public and farmers, plaster casts of paw prints and video footage. In addition, it will carry out field investigations of carcases of alleged kills for field signs of the animal responsible. That will include looking for signs of how the animal was killed and of scavenging by other animals, such as badgers, foxes, dogs or other big cats. If it is thought that a big cat may be responsible, the carcases of suspicious livestock kills will be submitted for post mortem analysis to gather more information on the cause of death.
Where a reported sighting is the only evidence, the Ministry will not usually become involved; it would not be an appropriate use of public funds to investigate such reports on the very remote possibility of finding field evidence to corroborate the sighting. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk understands that that would be a diversion of the Ministry's time and resources. When there is a very strong allegation—especially when stock are involved and the matter can be investigated—an investigation will of course be made, but I could not give an undertaking that the Ministry will investigate every report or every sighting unless there is strong evidence.
The Ministry must rely on evidence being submitted for proper consideration by the FRCA, and it may be indicative that much of the evidence reported in the press is not made available for public scrutiny and has not been made available for the Ministry to examine in depth.
Evidence such as plaster casts, sheep carcases, video footage and still photographs were submitted and evaluated by MAFF as part of the Ministry's investigation in 1995 of the evidence for the presence of a large exotic cat or cats in the Bodmin moor area and their possible impact on livestock. That was the investigation that the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned. The subsequent report, which was published, concluded that the photographs and video footage were of domestic cats and that the footprints were those of cats and dogs. There was no field or post mortem evidence to indicate the involvement of big cats in any of the livestock deaths that were followed up during the investigation.
In fact, to date, none of the investigations that the Ministry has been involved with has provided any firm evidence of the existence of big cats living in the wild. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked about co-ordination between Departments. I have already said, in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, that MAFF will take the lead in the investigation and that, when there is evidence that is worthy of investigation, we shall ensure that an investigation is carried out.
It is impossible to say categorically that no big cats are living wild in Britain, so it is only right and proper that the Ministry should continue to investigate serious claims of their existence—but only when there is a threat to livestock and when there is clear evidence that can be validated. I am afraid that, until we obtain stronger evidence, the reports of big cats are still in the category of the mythical creatures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his opening remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.